User talk:Friginator/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Friginator. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Talk page edit summaries

I have every right to clear out my own talk page and put whatever I want in a edit summary. That does not equal disruption. Disruption is abusive editors thinking that they own articles (and templates!) and treating others badly for improving them. --WTF (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I really don't care, so why are you bitching to me about this? Friginator (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

You are involved in a content dispute. Details here. --WTF (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The edits I made had absolutely nothing to do with the dispute. They don't interfere in any way with your preferred formatting. You simply reverted them on the basis that I had made them. That is not allowed. Again, neither you nor DVdm own the article. If someone else makes valid edits and you revert them because of a content dispute, that is being disruptive. --WTF (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, if you cannot recognize how your edits are vandalism, it is YOU who does not know what vandalism is. Taking an list or template and making it ENTIRELY DIFFICULT TO READ is vandalism. --WTF (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever helps you sleep at night. So why have I not been issued a warning? If it IS vandalism, don't you think the admins at multiple noticeboards would have done something? Go report me if you think I'm vandalizing pages. Otherwise, kindly shut your hole. I'm tired of dealing with you, or people LIKE you, for that matter. Friginator (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no, you are mistaken in your edit summary claim. YOU are on the noticeboard for edit warring. I've NEVER edit warred. And telling someone else to "shut [their] hole" is a clear attack. --WTF (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If you consider that a personal attack, go to a noticeboard and complain to an admin about it. But I'm guessing that at this point you won't. Because you're just interested in being annoying and insulting people in edit summaries and on talk pages. Go do something constructive. Read a book. Watch a film. I don't care what it is. But if you have evidence that you're pestering me for reasons other than being an obnoxious ass, take it to a noticeboard. Just keep in mind that the last 2 times you took editors to a noticeboard for things they didn't do, the result was not in your favor. Otherwise, reconsider shutting your hole one more time, leave my talk page alone, do something constructive and have a nice day. Friginator (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I DID, and I don't know why you haven't been banned yet. You continue to edit war and attack me. --WTF (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Boy, am I getting tired of this. Look, if I'm attacking you, I must be one hell of a lousy attacker. I haven't even touched your talk page. Not to mention that I've never been on a noticeboard for personal attacks either, despite you threatening to report me. So not only must I be lousy attacker, but you must be a lousy victim. You're practically begging me to attack you, and you never seem to tell anyone but me that you're being attacked. And for the record, the reason I haven't been banned yet may be because all your attempts to get me (or other users you disagree with) in any sort of trouble fail. Are you getting it yet? You're the one who's starting ridiculous arguments and making controversial edits, not me. If I were you, I would forget about this petty nonsense and go the fuck away instead of coming here and pestering me. Friginator (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wisdomtenacityfocus accusing me of vandalising, ownership, edit warring and lying. Feel free to add comments. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. Friginator (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Zappa bicycle?

I noticed that 'bicycle' is listed in the infobox at the top of Frank Zappa as an instrument he plays. Is that vandalism of for real? I thought I would mention it to you as one of the Zappa editors.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)

It's for real - and properly sourced in the body of the article. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9P2V0_p6vE. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I am glad I didin't edit it out. We didn't have Youtube or even TV when I listened to Frank. I wasn't stalking your talk page, I just thought I would ask one of the active editors of the page as opposed to removing something that looks like vandalism to many.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ha... but in this case the talk page stalker was me :-) It is wiki-terminology (see wp:TPS) for someone (me) who happens to have someone else's (Friginator's) talk page on their watchlist, and then hijacks a conversation with yet someone else (you). I assume that Friginator doesn't mind my doing so.

You did good asking the question here, but you could have been wp:BOLD and removed it from the article with a proper edit summary, in which case surely someone would have come along and restored it — see wp:BRD. Ruining articles is virtually impossible on Wikipedia. Cheers and happy editing! - DVdm (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No need to fight, you're BOTH stalkers to me! Yes, the bicycle is something Frank Zappa could play. Well, sort of--it's kind of like saying you can play a frying pan by beating it rhythmically. Friginator (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been bold a few times, but just end up wasting time in consensus discussions. I was always agreed with eventually, but what a waste of time. I am only make bold edits once now, if they get reverted I don't bother fighting much. I wish my April 3, 2012 edit had stayed on the Got Milk? page though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL, good one :-)

Alas, Wikipedia only allows humour in essays and in talk space, and on very rare occasions in article space — provided it is so subtle that nobody notices ;-)

By the way, have a look at http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Frank_Zappa sometime. Cheers and happy trying! - DVdm (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the edit should have stayed. It did happen in the parodies of the slogan, created its own citation, etc. I am hoping another wikpedian enters a line simlar to "On April 3, 2012, this wikipedia section was vandalized with a picture of George Burns and the caption "Got cigars?". We just need another wikpedian with a sense of humour and isn't COI, as I am.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Joe's Garage track listings

Aloha, and thanks for keeping an eye on this article as I complete a GA review on the talk page. I think we need a sentence or two, or even a paragraph describing the different track titles and why they were used. Do you know anything about this? Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Basically, here are the changes: When Joe's Garage Act I was released on CD in 1987 (the same year the Box Set edition was released on vinyl), it put in the same package as Joe's Garage Acts II & III. The track "Wet T-Shirt Nite" was changed to "Fembot in a Wet T-Shirt", "Toad-O Line" was changed to "On The Bus", and the Central Scrutinizer's dialogue from the end of "Lucille has Messed My Mind Up" was separated into its own track, entitled "Scrutinizer Postlude." I don't know about the remastered vinyl box set that came out the same year, but I assume it had the original names. The only thing close to an explanation I've ever heard for any of these changes is the "Fembot in a Wet T-Shirt" change. I've looked it up, and as far as I can tell it was the subject of a discussion that took place in Frank Zappa's "Society Pages" fanzine, issue #3 (which was published in 1991):

Rob Samler: "What is a Fembot in a wet t-shirt?"

Frank Zappa: "Do you remember the Six Million Dollar Man...?"

Rob Samler: "Uh-huh. sure."

Frank Zappa: "...there was an episode where they were being attacked by fembots...these 'Female Robots"...[if] she enters a wet T-shirt contest, what happens?"

Den Simms: "Sparks fly."

Rob Samler: "So, why did you change the title on the CD?"

Frank Zappa: "Why, what does it say on the CD?"

And that's all. I don't actually have the magazine, but I've heard about the discussion from here, and this has information about the publication, and here's an eBay listing for the issue. So that's basically all I know. Friginator (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Great work! I'll try and help do some more research. You are welcome to edit the article, you know. :) Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:We're Only in It for the Money/GA1

A Good Article review of We're Only in It for the Money has been put on hold for seven days to allow contributors time to address concerns. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

the black parade

im so sorry that you think im doing pointless vandalism and i hate to come across as constant thorn in your side but you claiming the black parade is pop/rock and citing allmusic does not really work. every rock album in recent history is cited as a pop/rock album by allmusic as a matter of generalization. it does the same thing with rap albums by just calling them rap. however specific subgenres such as grunge, heavy metal, psychedelic rock, emo etc are listed under styles which is right next to the genre heading on any album page. every other wikipedia page about music cites allmusic for its styles heading. if you call the black parade a pop/rock album you might as well do the same with every rock album in existence since that's how its organized on allmusic. if you look back at my citations to allmusic you will see that every genre i currently have up their is cited correctly under the styles heading. Please do not view me as an annoyance or a troll whose just trying to bother you. i just want this albums genre to be a good reprsentation of how it sounds and pop/rock applies to every rock album ever made according to your citation.

Thank you very much for hearing me out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicstuff0324 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing changes the fact that these are called "styles" and not "genres." I understand that most music articles cite "styles" and not "genres", but that doesn't make it right, nor does it make it Wikipedia policy. Unless it's sourced as a genre, it shouldn't be listed as a genre. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And don't worry, I don't view your edits as "trolling" or anything of the sort. I simply have to disagree with your reasoning. Friginator (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

im just saying that pretty much every other wikipedia page does the very same thing with the styles and changing this genre to pop/rock means you would have to do it with every other wikipedia article because that would make their genre invalid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicstuff0324 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandal reports

That's some ambitious vandal reporting you did at WP:AIV, but I had to decline both reports. One account had only one edit and only one warning, hardly a pattern of vandalism. The other account had zero edits and the username was not a policy violation.

For usernames that violate Wikipedia:Username policy, report them at WP:UAA.

Accounts can't be blocked as vandals if they have zero or one edit. There needs to be a pattern of edits and a sufficient escalation of warnings before that happens. Keep up the vigilance and good work, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I do have to correct one of your points though, in that one of the users I reported hadn't edited anything. I reported Bigdog37027 (talk · contribs) (who did, in fact, make an edit that was clear vandalism, though I must have confused him with someone else when it comes to how many times he edited) as well as user Iknowarealbeardwhenisee1 (talk · contribs), who had made two BLP edits that were clearly vandalism. In the first case, obviously, you're right, that was a hasty mistake on my part. I was using the Lupin recent changes filter, and it's easy to get going a little too fast when you're reverting vandalism in real time. I must have opened the contributions page to another vandal who had more edits, and confused them. In the second case, though, I wasn't aware that that wasn't "blockable" when in came to BLP articles. Especially when the account is, to be honest, very unlikely to provide constructive edits in the future. But still, yeah, I was clearly going too fast. Thanks for the heads-up. Friginator (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I see the problem. You reported Iknowarealbeardwhenisee (talk · contribs) on WP:AIV which has zero contributions.... because it isn't a registered account. Simple typo. My apologies. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Mistaken Identity?

I haven't made any changes to albums called I don't love you, I think maybe the IPs gig mixed up, I'm on a 3G iPad so maybe that's it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.31 (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how you're connected to the internet, so your iPad isn't a problem--it's your IP address. The one you're currently on is 166.147.120.31. Here is the list of contributions made under that IP address, including the edit made to "I Don't Love You". I'd suggest that you create an account if you don't want to receive warnings (and possibly a block), because someone under 166.147.120.31 is making nonconstructive edits to the musical genres for certain pages on this site. Friginator (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thefuturechristinedaae

Are you sure these 3 edits you warned this editor about are really vandalism? They looked like good-faith edits to me. Have you tried engaging with this editor to find out?

Take a look at:

Thanks! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

"Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Believe (Justin Bieber album), you may be blocked from editing. Friginator (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)." Firstly, I would like to cite a Wikipedia policy, reaching consensus through editing. It states: "When an edit is made, other editors may either accept it, change it, or revert it. Seek a compromise means "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution", either through continued editing or through discussion." You disagreed with my addition of "teen pop" to the infobox on the believe page. This would call for seeking a compromise, not sending a stupid "disruptive editing" warning to me. Furthermore, none of the genres on that page are even sourced. How about we just remove all of them then, huh? Also, this edit this edit you reverted on the same page was of an extra word added to a sentence to improve clarity, a sentence I originally wrote which had reached consensus. According to policy, "any revert should be explained...edit summaries that explain the objection clearly are preferred." Your labeling it as "vandalism" does not provide adequate reasoning for your removal of it. I would now like to ask you to stop disrupting Wikipedia. Noreplyhaha (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Kidding aside, gratuitously characterizing others' edits as disruptive or vandalistic can get you sanctioned for lack of civility. Take heed! Cheers, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)