User talk:Friginator/Archive 9

Rocky Balboa
Hi Friginator You mistaked: Rocky Balboa is alive and thats correct. If you want, leave it like this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.34.148 (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Joe's Garage
This edit was tagged as needing a citation. Is it supported by sources in the current article? This is a GA-class article and unsourced content can't be included. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

MST3K Home VIdeo Availability
"Redundant--There's no point in listing every on-demand service that streams the show over and over."

Please do not remove the information on home video availability of MST3K episodes. The information about which video services the episodes can be purchased from is not redundant, since it wasn't listed before. The added listings for Amazon Instant Video and Vudu are not "listing every on-demand service that streams the show over and over." Each episode is marked only with the service or services that sell that episode individually. This is the purpose of the "Home Video Availability" column in the list, and purchasing the show this way is in no way different from buying a DVD. Amazon and Vudu are the publishers of these episodes, just like Rhino, Shout!, etc., are the publishers of the DVD versions. Not every episode available on DVD is available to purchase from these publishers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.233.195 (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The On-Demand services that offer episodes of the show get them from the distributor of the physical DVDs (Shout! Factory). There isn't a single episode offered from Amazon, Netflix, Hulu or any other similar service that hasn't already been made available on home video in a physical format. That's what I mean by "redundant." I feel I should also point out that streaming a film over the internet is arguably not the same as owning it on "home video". Honestly, I'm wondering if we even need a column for "Home Video Availability" in the article, considering two things: First, it borders on WP:FANCRUFT by providing information mainly of interest to the show's existing fanbase and not the general public (this policy is frequently ignored by editors of MST3K articles), and second, there's already this article that covers that exact subject subject (in a ridiculous, un-encyclopedic, obsessive-compulsive fanboy-ish manner). But I digress. Also, please remember to sign your posts. Cheers. Friginator (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A couple of points: 1) By your logic, none of the DVD releases should be listed in this column if they had a previous VHS release. That would be inconsistent with the format of this column and the information it provides. The column is clearly not a simple "Yes" or "No" field: it tells you what format each home video release has seen. Although all the episodes for sale online have been released in some physical format before, not all of the previously released DVDs have made to online sales, so no, it is not redundant information. If you feel like all online sales should be conflated into a single term, that's reasonable. Constantly removing the information isn't. 2) "I feel I should also point out that streaming a film over the internet is arguably not the same as owning it on "home video". " You are wrong. Purchasing a movie from an online vendor ensures that you own it for the purposes of viewing it at your home. Furthermore, describing these as "streaming" services is a mischaracterization. These services allow you to download the film and watch it any time you wish. It is a different format but it still constitutes home video ownership and availability under any definition of the term. The title of the column is not "physical media releases." You may not see the purpose of this table or column but other users do. Please leave people who actually use this site add useful information instead of defacing it.


 * First, please try to be civil. That last sentence isn't necessary or accurate and doesn't help your argument in the least. Second, please sign your posts, as I've mentioned before. Third, is there a single episode available through an online streaming service that hasn't already been made available on DVD? Also, look at this particular statement from your post:


 * "2) "I feel I should also point out that streaming a film over the internet is arguably not the same as owning it on "home video". " You are wrong."


 * You seem to have misread my statement. This point is highly arguable, as I pointed out. If you look at an episode available through Amazon, you'll notice that they use the same cover artwork as the already-available DVD releases. This is because they're taken from the same release, issued through Shout Factory. Between this dispute, the blatant violations of WP:CRYSTAL that have plagued the article for years, as well as the redundancy of listing home video releases when there's a separate article specifically for that purpose, I'm definitely beginning to think that the entire "Home Video Availability" column is a waste of time. Friginator (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Pink Floyd Talk
Friginator, you left the following message on my page:

"Hello, I'm Friginator. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Pink Floyd that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)"

A hat-tip for reaching out; are you sincerely willing to collaborate? If so, you might realize I can be a fairly constructive and polite chap. If you are sincere in your outreach, then I definitely want to have a dialog. My main concern with the Floyd article is not my comment. Here it is again because I think the comment and the points I raise after it deserve some discussion - in fact, I am so not looking for a silly debate but to set something straight. I would welcome dialog here or off Wikipedia - whatever you think is best:

''"Riddleben, this page is beyond collaboration. Legally, the band still exists: David Gilmour's view is just one band member's view. Nick Mason would still like the band to carry on - but either way there has been NO statement that the band has dissolved, only Gilmour stating he's not inclined to do anything else. This is not terribly different from what Waters said when he left the band and stated Floyd was over. '87 and '94 prove differently. Of course, these details don't matter unless they are going to be used to boost GabeMC's opinion - as is the case with the issue regarding Wright's contract: she is quick to point that out and use that as a resource but the reason that is "legitimate" and the resources others have presented over several months to dispute points she has asserted are automatically knocked as not having legitimacy is because, well, they don't support HER views (and Riddleben, you are correct about Wright). It's that simple. Responsible editing would present BOTH views... but this page is pretty much "Pink Floyd history according to GabeMC." I'm fine with GabeMC contributing here - but the proprietary air and lack of objectivity is obscene (not to mention her snarky attitude toward anyone who disagrees with her - some sort of latte-sipping, pseudo-intellectual arrogance that is beyond explication). The chickens will come home to roost - if you look at this page's talk history you can glean how GabeMC has pretty much taken over this to present things as she sees fit - having bamboozled a couple of editors that are a bit overwhelmed with her "accomplishments," the modus operandi is usually the same when it comes to anyone presenting ANY other view other than hers: "you're a sockpuppet," " my resource is good but yours isn't," etc. Really, folks, lighten up. If you want to make an impressive article, focus on presenting the facts rather than running a Jim Jones-styled editing cult. All it takes is presenting BOTH sides, you need not take one or the other."''

I am bold in what I state but I am responding with the same attitude many new users - and even other experienced editors - have received at the hands of GabeMC and her supporters. I have not seen an editor acting as a fair arbitrator when disagreements arise between her and others. There is a cultish approach to this article and I am asking that in the spirit of your desire to collaborate you consider other points of view. I'm willing to be collaborative: I hope you are willing to truly have an honest dialog here about the Pink Floyd article and to be collaborative yourself. But collaboration requires objectivity: you have to temporarily divorce from any support you lend GabeMC and look at this objectively: bear in mind - I have NOT edited the article, so I have no skin in this - I am just pointing out something I sincerely feel is wrong.

If you read GabeMC's and her supporters' comments - they are snarky, condescending, and terse, e.g.,

"But, would it be objective to include information about difference of opinion on this point of whether the band still exists and explaining how some feel Barbican featured Pink Floyd and not merely its last "official" members? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B101:DBB4:B1F7:23B2:4309:240 (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

"No. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)"

Anything but collaborative. It is also consistent, in the time I've been watching this page, that resources that support her views are always legitimatized by her and her supporters - but those that don't support her views are not (BBC is not legitimate? Seriously?). This is far too subjective and should at least compel a more professional editor to show both sides of a point of view, e.g., (roughly) "the existence of the band is disputed: these resources show that Gilmour believes this is over. Waters believed the same after he left the band. But these resources suggest they still exist as a legal entity and that at least one of band member believes the band can carry on. No resources prove that the band has ever been officially dissolved." That's it. Full stop. Either way, there is something that is blatantly absurd when absolutely NO ONE is allowed to disagree with GabeMC... I mean, it's getting quite weird.

If you look at the article's history, it is factual, and undeniable, that GabeMC has dominated the editing: she started in February of 2010 as anyone else who would contribute to this - but since about August 2012 the page has basically become property of GabeMC and a few editors that support her - anyone that disagrees is systematically shut out. That would be OK except if you really want to nurture a collaborative spirit you must recognize that she doesn't take kindly to disagreement - read her responses. I'll pluck one example out of many: see her interactions with Mlpearc, (exchanges with Burbridge, Christo Jones, sabrebd seem quite civil though the debate about whether the band officially disbanded was already in full steam again - see interactions with Henry McClean).

Main issue here is a number of points have been raised, with reasonable sources, to support competing points of view. I think they should both be presented, e.g., Klose as a member of Tea vs Floyd, whether the band is officially disbanded, etc.

One concern I have is that this might be being reduced to a Waters vs. Gilmour thing. A Wikipedia article should transcend that. GabeMC's partiality to Waters is not exactly a secret (see http://blogs.smh.com.au/noisepollution/archives/2009/08/lip_syncing_live.html?page=fullpage#comments, for example).

I am fine with people who are passionate about Barrett, or Waters, or Gilmour - and I actually see some great resources to back things she believes. But this shouldn't diminish editors from presenting facts that might challenge those views - there is no harm in (in fact, Wikipedia begs for) presenting the competing viewpoints in the article.

The bottom line from my point of view is:

- Good editors should be concerned when one editor is dominating and showing a sense of proprietorship in any given article.

- Good editors should be concerned when the responses become terse, rude, short, arrogant: if you look at the Riddleben dialog, he/she presented their view with great humility... but GabeMC's response each time was increasingly defensive and snarky - there are other examples of this.

- When there are two viewpoints that are reasonably supported by resources (again, BBC?) then good editors should be collaborative by saying "you know, we do need to present this as point of view in the article." This is not unlike someone going into the Queensryche, Great White, or LA Guns pages (despite the different rock genre) and saying: "well, I don't agree that this version of the band is legitimate so we won't include that in the article." A narrative should discuss why some people view one thread as the legitimate truth while others see another in the same light. In the Floyd case, there HAS to be at least a statement that says: "the band has never officially disbanded."

These are generic elements of good collaboration, not just the Floyd article.

At the end of the day, if GabeMC approached this with a bit more humility, I think people wouldn't feel the way they do about her. Problem is that there's a growing number of people out there that feel that the treatment other editors are getting is abusive - and not all that civil to begin with.--Ikeepwatching (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's my take--If you want to collaborate with someone, why are you attacking them? You should also see WP:OUTING. Linking to comments people have made off of this site is frowned upon. Not to mention petty, in this case, as that thread on lip-syncing you're pointing to isn't especially damning in any way. Neither is pointing out GabeMC's tendency to act annoyed when people say asinine, insulting things. Neither is pointing out GabeMC's common sense approach to dealing with people who look an awful lot like sockpuppets. Neither is any accusation that GabeMC's editing is hurting the article as, last I checked, it was a featured article. If you really feel that this is a big problem, I'd recommend going to Gabe directly. If that doesn't work, I would take it to a noticeboard. But not the article talk page. That's the last place to post stuff like this. Friginator (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your views. I may not agree with everything you say but appreciate what you're saying. We will have to agree to disagree, I suppose, on quite a bit: my point is GabeMC has had a history of being fairly impetuous in her discourse with others - I've seen this since 2010, peaking between last and this year. So it could be seen as tit-for-tat. The issue with the lip-syncing site is not whether there's merit to that argument or not, but the fact that her comments clearly show bias - that's not the only link that proves this. But sure, let's remove those "outside" comments from the equation: most of her protestations have to do with what is clearly an appreciation for the history of the band post-Waters. What would be asinine (and, frankly, unfair to readers) would be to behave as though this isn't the case. When this article was nominated to become a Featured Article, it was after years of work others had put into it - the history of the page proves that. I have seen others go to GabeMC directly to object to things she has done here. My only discourse on the Talk page for the Pink Floyd article was defending substantiated points, particularly points that have been raised BEFORE, backed by resources (again, see Henry McClean - and a few more before), so I am only RESPONDING to what is an already, ongoing dialog there. I will be a gentleman and take your advice, and consider taking issues to her over time - but my main issue is with the way much of Floyd's history is being filtered through her own (single) perspective, even when others make a case that is backed by resources (this really reminds me a great deal of Colbert's "Wikiality"). You seem to have a great deal of faith in the democratic system Wikipedia purports to support. You seem like an earnest, level-headed, and even-tempered person. All I would ask is that you keep the balance of views on that page, the ability of people who disagree with her to contribute, and the accuracy of the post-Waters Floyd era history in mind. For all I know you might be partial to one band period over another - that has been the ongoing "battle" among Floyd's fiercest fans - but there's a responsibility to present things objectively. At the end of the day, each editor's credibility is their own to own. I know GabeMC can write reputable things, but her approach here, on Wikipedia, does not always reflect the professionalism I know is expected of her outside this site, in her other endeavors. It would really help elevate Wikipedia if the same courtesy of discourse was extended to others here as I imagine she does in the "real world." Thanks for your feedback.--Ikeepwatching (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Mothermania
Can you give me one good reason why you moved Mothermania back to the regular albums section, rather than leaving it in the compilations section ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kollektionist (talk • contribs) 05:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The official discography, which lists it as Zappa's seventh official album. And the fact that it contains material that isn't found on other albums. Friginator (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For future reference, the full discussion is here. Friginator (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

"MST3K video releases" article problem
On the Mystery Science Theater 3000 video releases article, there had usually been some indication when a new DVD set was set to be released when the information was available. As such, it has been added, and I believe one time in the past, I added information on a not-yet-released set when the details of its release were given out by Shout Factory. The release is little more than a month away, and it's better to add the information when we have it.

Moreover, the WP:CRYSTAL rule you keep citing blocks unconfirmed speculation, and I don't see a specific rule saying "you cannot talk about it if it isn't released." Other DVDs on other articles have been mentioned before their release date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireflyfanboy (talk • contribs) 17:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * First off, let me apologize for the lack of genuine communication about this. Second, however, I have to point out that just because, in your words, "Other DVDs on other articles have been mentioned before their release date," doesn't mean that those pages meet Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Nothing should be taken for granted. Just because Shout Factory confirms it doesn't mean it's guaranteed to come out on that exact day. In fact, WP:CRYSTAL specifically states, "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." I have no real problem whatsoever with mentioning an upcoming release--there's no policy against that. But it needs to be made clear that the DVD is scheduled to come out, not that it will come out. As for the header listing the number of episodes that have been released, it's incredibly misleading to change the episode count until those episodes are actually available. Per WP:3RR, I haven't reverted the edits, but I've tweaked the article so that it conforms to Wikipedia guidelines. Friginator (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

semi-protection
I've semi protected this page as it appears you are the target of an IP-hopping sockpuppet. Let me know if you want it unprotected. Toddst1 (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...
Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for bringing it up. Friginator (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)