User talk:Friginator/Archive 8

Helena
Hey i hate to keep bugging you, but why can;t style mean genre, its a synonym and its used interchangeably by many review sites and people so why can't we use the styles on allmusic as a genre when that's clearly what allmusic means, especially since they are used by many other wikipedia pages as a valid source.

Frankly i don't know what your trying to accomplish by slowly changing every my chemical romance genre to pop/rock. I can only assume that your just trying to keep the genre warring to a minimum by keeping it at just pop/rock, but why can't it just be that we can use styles from allmusic and just limit it to that, there's no need to put such a tight lock and key on the genre edits when the style section shows they are more than pop/rock.

I don't want to be in this eternal argument with you over this, i think your hearts in the right place for trying to keep genre warring to a minimum but i also think your going a bit to far with this, there's no need to put these obscene limits on citations that simply don't exist for other wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.197.34 (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * First, let me say that the genre is not a big deal, and not worth all of this trouble you're going to to try and sway people's positions on it. Secondly, just because something is cited a certain way on other Wikipedia pages does not make it policy. You don't seem to be understanding this, as every time you get into this time-wasting crusade of yours you say something along the lines of "Genre and style are synonyms," or "Other pages list styles as genres, so why can't this one?" Those other pages are not precedent nor policy, so please stop bringing them up as if they were. As for your opinion that "style" and "genre" are synonyms, read WP:V. If you can't understand that, stop editing Wikipedia. Just stop. It's the single most important policy that this website has, so if you can't understand how to abide by it, you should just stop completely. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but there is no place on this encyclopedia for people who ignore something so simple.


 * As for your accusation that I am, in your words, "slowly changing every my chemical romance genre to pop/rock", that's not true, even if it looks like it from my reverts. Really, what I do is very simple. If an article's genre is being disputed, and a reliable website lists a genre for that article, I put it in the infobox. That's sufficient. If it lists something else separately as a style on the exact same page, it would be ridiculous to say "well, they mean genre even though they explicitly say it's something different." Find a good source that supports your argument, or quit bothering people about something that is, in all honesty, quite pointless. 


 * Also, please sign your posts in the future. It's not hard and frankly, the fact that you still aren't doing it after all this time is annoying. When I see that I have new messages, I expect the last edit on my talk page to be from the user that edited it, not SineBot. It's just the polite thing to do. Also, I would appreciate it if you would mention that you're opening the same discussion on someone else's talk page. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

talk page
Please come to the talk page for three cheers, we all need to discuss how these edits are going to work, and lets all be polite and non aggressive please for everyone's sake.--Musicstuff0324 (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Frank Zappa proposal
Yes, I would definitely support such a proposal. --Sow-crates (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

cover artist
According to this, the artist is Bill Miller. Zappa trust probably owns the copyright, but it isn't his artwork.

http://www.discogs.com/Frank-Zappa-Congress-Shall-Make-No-Law--/release/2640346 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.245.178 (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for reverting those edits performed on my user page
That individual has been bugging me for a while now. I think that since the person has hopped IPs and performed long-term disruption, along with having been blocked several times, this is ground for me to file an abuse report. Do you have any advice for how I should navigate this situation?

I would give you more information, but you don't have e-mail attached, and there are elements about this situation that I would rather not talk openly and publicly about.

Cheers, and happy editing. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 23:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Can I have some help?
I put up a discussion for deletion on the article Mood for a Day because it's a non notable song stub and has no citations. How do I add it to the Articles for Deletion page? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just go to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 8 and add it at the top. Friginator (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A Dozen
I checked the project proposal page and we finally have a dozen users on the support list. You said something about there being a dozen users... so I thought I'd inform you! --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

87green
can 87 green bring back his article expansions for three cheers for sweet revenge, since you said it was ok for him to do it for i brought you my bullets, so can his edits for the musical style article section be brought back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicstuff0324 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Edits not vandalism
I see you reverted a number of edits by as vandalism. There are two problems. First, the edits were not vandalism. They were unsourced, but good-faith edits. Per WP:VANDAL: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."

Second, it was not appropriate to give them increasingly severe vandalism warnings after every revert you made. This IP had stopped editing hours before and was not ignoring your warnings. You should only escalate the severity of warnings if the editor is ignoring the previous ones.

Please be careful in the future to take into account the user's intent when handling these situations. Thanks. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  17:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes
I concur with your point that Mystery Science Theater 3000, Volume 10, as published, does include Godzilla vs. Megalon, regardless of whether or not it's available. But I'd argue that your citing of WP:CRYSTAL for the Volume XXV release is a bit pedantic. The official release is only 4 days away, both the official and other sources list its contents, and its cover art, including the list of episodes, has been available for eBay sellers for nearly a month. (I can provide proper citations if you feel it useful, but I think that's overkill for auxiliary information in this article.) I really only added this now because who knows what I'll be doing in 4 days, and I'm about to make a huge update to fix all the improperly formatted air-dates while I have the time right now. Nevertheless, if you feel strongly that these releases should remain unmentioned until 4 December, I'll let someone else update that info. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind. My AWB skills seem to be a bit rusty, and I've run out of time for WP editing for now. Perhaps I'll try my date cleanup next week and tackle both updates. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Continued edit warring
I saw that after being warned, you continued edit warring on All That Remains (band) and I blocked you for edit warring. Your edits on that page indicated that you were reverting the edits of a sockpuppet, yet you applied no tags to the user page indicating who the editor was a sockpuppet of. Only reverting actions performed by banned users, their sockpuppets and by tagged sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked accounts could be considered an exception to 3RR - but not exceptions to edit warring.

Later, I found that you had reported the editor to SPI - which was not obvious. Either way, continuing the edit war was the wrong solution. The SPI is still open, but it appears that the editor you were reverting may be that sockpuppet.

I have reconsidered my administrative actions here today after digging further and have unblocked you with a caution that you need to be much clearer in your actions and avoid edit warring, rather than relying on possible exceptions and continuing edit warring.

Toddst1 (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Frank Zappa WikiProject
 You are receiving this message because you rename is on the list of interested parties at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Frank Zappa. This message is being sent to let you know that the project is now active! Pleasfeel free to join in discussion on the project's talk page, and be sure to add WikiProject Frank Zappa to the talk page of any relevant article you come across. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * p u will probably also notice that I went ahead and moved your draft pages from your userspace to serve as the project page. I hope that is ok with you. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sock
On my user page Themetallican is some guy who was blocked long ago. I don't see any identical edits or matched things.

197666 years (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I only edit pages for punk, metal and deathcore bands. His and his socks did on various rock genres. You can give me examples of similar edits

197666 years (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Queensrÿche
Hi Friginator, thank you for your edits regarding Queensrÿche and Geoff Tate. Very much appreciated! :-) --Eddyspeeder (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. I hadn't checked on those articles in a while, and it seemed to me that there had been a lot of anonymous editors out there putting their own take on things. It seems important to keep things as neutral as possible when there's so much controversy surrounding the band's status nowadays. Friginator (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems important to keep things as neutral as possible — my thoughts exactly! ;-) --Eddyspeeder (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it is relevant to provide information on who is actually playing on an album when it is well known among fans that it differs substantially to the credits published. As this information was published and detailed by one of the musicians involved, I also think the source is as credible as possible. Killmeister (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, the source you have given for the information (which, for the record, was not cited properly), violates Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy. Anything that is intended to portray a member of the band in a negative light violates this policy. Not to mention that the information is clearly intended to portray another musician in a more positive light. Second, it is a message board discussion, which is not a reliable source or an appropriate place to post information from, especially since there is nothing to back up the claims. Third, this is a case of WP:FANCRUFT, in which the material added is only of note to fans of the music. Friginator (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Just would like to clarify that the intention was not to portray a band member in a negative light, but to provide additional information about uncredited musicians in a similar manner as for example in the articles on Kiss albums Destroyer and Creatures of the Night. What would be considered a credible source considering the musicians and performances are uncredited? Killmeister (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * (Hope you will allow me to respond on this talk page.) Killmeister, I understand why you are trying to add it, and it may be possible that it will in the future. So I don't doubt your good intentions and I hope you will stay involved (what you've added to the Geoff Tate page today adds more nuance, which I appreciate). At the moment it is a bit too early, because it is still under discussion. The claims that the music on the recent albums was (largely) not played by the band members of Queensrÿche other than Geoff Tate, are still disputable. In the injunction for freezing the use of the Queensrÿche brand (plaintiffs Geoff and Susan Tate), Geoff Tate claims this is the case in order to discredit the other band members who fired him, but the other band members deny they didn't play on the albums, both in their declarations and via other channels. So in that light, adding this information places the other band members of Queensrÿche in a negative light, and supports Geoff Tate's point of view. The other musicians are rumored to have signed a contract to never disclose their musical contributions. So at the moment, it is unclear whether this is true or not. Possibly the court case in November 2013 will shed more light on this (in that case there may be some testimonies that specifically need to address the contributions of the various band members on the albums). That, as well as the non-disclosure agreement signed by the session musicians, would be more valid. Board discussions on these topics are a wonderful thing, but they aren't authoritative. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Pink Floyd
Just a quick note to be careful with your edits at Pink Floyd and not to violate WP:3RR (that's exactly what some people want you to do, I know!). I'm with you on this one, but it's probably best to go to talk rather than keep reverting. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 00:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox member order
Hey Friginator, though it matters little to me, FWIW Template:Infobox_musical_artist suggests that they be "listed in order of joining", which for Floyd would mean Waters and Mason first, then Wright, then Barrett and lastly, Gilmour. Though an argument could be made that Waters, Mason, Wright and Barrett all joined "Pink Floyd" at the same time, so alphabetising them would seem to make sense. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  23:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Quadrophenia Reversion
Hi,

Thought your reversion of my expanded summary was rather abrupt? The original summary gives the reader little or no insight into the character, motivations, drivers of the main protagonist, let alone the plot. A suggestion on the talk page to make it more brief, accompanied by some suggestions on how that could have been achieved, would have perhaps been more appropriate than a reversion, which I might have only expected in a case of vandalism or similar.

If there are any Wikipedia guidelines on the maximum length and depth of a summary, please let me know where these can be found so I can avoid this in future?

Kbaughan1 (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: Thanks for the advice on this. I'll take a close look at how some good example of existing similar pages are structured in terms of length, content and organisation, and try to produce something more appropriate. And shorter ;-) Kbaughan1 (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Return of the son of Wisdomtenacityfocus
See, Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear and Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear/Archive. At least this time he carefully avoided touching Zappa stuff. Duh. - DVdm (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Age of Ultron
Hi Friginator,

Just wanted to let you know that I've added a comment to the conversation at Talk:Age of Ultron. Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)