User talk:Friginator/Archive IV

Deadpool Corps

(Reverted 1 edit by Ottertron; It still doesn't count until the book has actually been published.. (TW))

Hey there! I noticed your edits in the Deadpool section, hint at the quote that you left, and I would like to inform the follow: Although, you're right, the book hasn't been published yet, this isn't a matter of "if" or "will the book be published?" but more of, "The book is coming out starting in April." The book will be an ongoing series and I even referenced to the Marvel comic catalog, which if it isn't more official I don't know what is. So while I understand where you are coming from, it's still isn't right. Please, feel free to message me back.Ottertron 06:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottertron (talk • contribs)

Hi there again! I see you would still like to talk about this, so I shall. Sorry if it seems like I'm "edit warring" with you, but as I stated in the edited section, this isn't a "WP:CRYSTAL" issue. If you go by your logic and I assume you will, then the following needs to be removed as well: Deadpool: Wade Wilson's War #1-4 (2010), World War Hulks: Hulked-Out Heroes #1-2 (2010), Agent X #1-15 (2002–2004){I say this because Agent X was his own character, Deadpool was just added later you help with sales}, information and the line about the Deadpool movie since it's still in "pre-production" and Deadpool: volume 4: Monkey Business (collects Deadpool (vol. 4) #19-24, 120 pages, Marvel Comics, hardcover, July 2010, ISBN 0-7851-4530-3) since it doesn't have a reference nor has it be released yet. But really, I'm not going to go through there and take out information that is still improtant, that does have reference and that's coming out. Also, I took time to read the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" and I have to say that I agree with it, but here's the following, "1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." By this logic, the Deadpool comic is coming out so it must be added to article to insure that when someone reads this, they are well informed. I do enjoy this discussion with you and am willing to continue if need be, but I will continue to fix your vandalism, which seems to be the case WP:BURO--Ottertron 19:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottertron (talk • contribs)

This isn't about the Deadpool Corps but it's about the revision you did to the Deadpool article. Why was my name in your last edit? I don't believe I ever made any edited to the section that was highlighted.--Ottertron (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

X-Men First Class

So, what is the issue with adding it to the infobox? Looking at Wikipedia: Crystal Ball, it appears to be acceptable.

• Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.
  • X-Men: First Class is notable since its the planned fifth installment of the X-Men franchise and it is certain to take place. A director has been hired, a release date has been confirmed, casting is currently taking place, crew members have been hired, and filming will take place in September.

• If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.
  • Preparation for the movie is well-underway and the article for the movie is well-referenced.

So, why is it unacceptable to add the film to the infobox?-5- (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You can disregard this, it was settled on the article's talk page.-5- (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me...

I revert "genre warriors" constantly, and I don't appreciate you characterising my good faith edits as "genre warring". You're the one who made the change without a good explanation - "not a rock opera" in the edit summary looks like personal opinion. Try something more like the edit summary I left. Radiopathy •talk• 19:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Quadrophenia "advertising" category

Hi, Friginator. I tagged Quadrophenia with the "films about advertising" category because Jimmy Cooper is defined as a character to a considerable extent by his unhappiness with the agency life — which is depicted in several substantial scenes inside the agency. (These scenes are made even more notable because they depict an unusual combination of factors: a London agency, not a New York one... "Swinging London" of the mid-60s, a clearly-defined if short-lived period of interest today... and Jimmy's bottom-rung position in the agency, usually depicted in films in terms of top-level execs, not a mail-boy.) It's not as if Jimmy is Roger Thorne of North By Northwest, which I did not tag as a "film about advertising," who just happens to be an advertising executive; Jimmy's job pervades almost every scene. Finally, the definitive "film about advertising" is unquestionably The Hucksters (1947), and even it has more than half its running time in settings other than a business office — nightclubs, posh homes, country inns, even the Super Chief luxury train. If a Wikipedia reader is looking for an interesting — and alternative — view of the advertising business, the "films about advertising" cat tag would help him find one at Quadrophenia.

If I've convinced you, I'd appreciate it if you restored the category to Quadrophenia. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, you were going to restore that advertising category? Thanks. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy editing! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Post-Ultimatum: Ultimate Blah vs Ultimate Comics Blah

Hi. I noticed you were weighing in on the whole Ultimate Blah vs Ultimate Comics Blah with the renaming of Enemy and Mystery. I think we need to sort this out once and for all, so I've started a discussion on it. If you could throw in your two cents, that'd be grand. Cheers. Planewalker Dave (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you won't. (JoeLoeb (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC))

Response

I've responded on the X-Men Origins: Wolverine talk page.-5- (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD for "Danger Days..."

You should note that removing all links to Danger Days: True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys won't result in much discussion and will likely prolong the deletion process. If little to no editors chime in, the AfD will be relisted for another week of debate. You may want to post a topic at Talk:My Chemical Romance to direct interested parties to the discussion. If this is something you choose to do, try to keep your wording neutral. Inappropriate canvasing is frowned upon. Fezmar9 (talk)

Reply

Dear Friginator, thanks for your message. For a small instance I hoped Parrot would be open to discuss at least some point but - alas! - he seems adamant to revert each and every of my edits, even if he agreed to them on other pages (as on the admittedly minor UK/US issue). Discussion I think is possibly but thus far with him not. Maybe you can jump in and help consensus-building in any way. BTW, I did not edit-war with others, as I was not aware (by mistake) that any one else had commented when I last reverted the Division Bell. (And thus far, I am not aware of any violation on my part.) Str1977 ^(talk) 21:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for opening it. Parrot seems bent on sitting things out, while another editor is trolling at AN/I. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Waiting for the End

Ha, well whatever I placed on the page I believe you placed in your article. Well, I did nominate it for speedy deletion but I will assist in upgrading your article, no worries man. Cheers Kevon100 ^Talk! _{If you're ❺❺❺ then I'm ❻❻❻} 20:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Noelemahc

Based on your edit I wanted to point your attention to this discussion. Spidey104^contribs 13:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Tulsa School of Arts and Sciences for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Tulsa School of Arts and Sciences, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulsa School of Arts and Sciences until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -Vaarsivius (Talk to me.) 19:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am NOT a new user.

"Comment - Nominator is a new editor, and just started an account two days ago. Also hasn't yet made too many real edits to articles, yet has nominated five articles for deletion using Afd in the last 8 hours (This one, Joe Lake, Mucklewain, Richard S. Baron and Mike Hammer: Murder Takes All). In my opinion, this deletion discussion seems to be coming from a bit of over-zealousness when it comes to editing, and not any substantial lack of notability"

Okay. I am NOT new, I have been on WP for two and a half years; I am well qualified. (My wikiholic test agrees.) Check User:A Common Man for why. Now, secondly, you may be wondering "How did a 4 days old account get TW activated?" I knew an admin WAY back in the days. So, I asked him to activate TW for me. Third, "over-zealousness"? No way in hell am I zealous. Check my other edits, and you will see some perfectly fine user reports and reverts. Fourth, I made "real" edits on my former account. Fifth, and finally, I understand making five AFDs in eight hours is a bit weird, but sometimes you have to respect personal opinion.

Thank you. -Vaarsivius (Talk to me.) 15:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. -Vaarsivius (Talk to me.) 13:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

TBK

None of that is necessary, everything that needs to be said is on the discussion page. You have no source that backs up your numbering, and there is no consensus, no one agrees with you. You have no case. Sergecross73 msg me 02:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Teargarden by Kaleidoscope. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Also note that I am warning User:Sergecross73 as well. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

About the Shout! Factory forums

Alot of the material I noted about from the forums was mostly from posts by Brian Ward (one of the members of Shout! Factory). Since he's a member of the company, he should technically be considered a reliable source. And he actually noted about the fact that most of the "glitches" from The Final Sacrifice, Lost Continent and Beast of Yucca Flatts discs were from the original master tapes, which is why I had to put my source showing the thread. And on the Lost Continent disc, there really is a warning that states about the poor quallity that is about to be seen, along with him stating that it'd be too complicated to fix the quallity in the master tapes, and that Jim Mallon was digitizing the episodes. If you want I could even copy and paste all his statements to show you what I mean. 24.181.236.186 (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Late thanks

I'm sorry, I don't monitor my own user page much, except for vandalism, and did not notice your leaving of a Barnstar on my page. I thank you for it. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 22:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Edcucation, Experience or Talent by Malkam Dior

I declined the CSD nomination. While the article is not suitable for WP, it does not qualify as an A1, which states "This applies only to very short articles."

I see the article as failing Original Research, but that's not a CSD criteria. Would you consider a PROD?

The author is likely to contest, which would mean AfD, but in the present form, I'm not comfortable with a CSD.--SPhilbrickT 17:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Fall (Gorillaz album)

Before you you cite WP:ALBUM and what it does or does not support, see this section: [1], especially the TYPE field. Just because Albarn recorded the songs off the cuff on his iPod, that doesn't mean it's not a studio album, because a studio is where new songs are recorded. In this case it's a mobile studio with new recording technology. Musicians have used mobile studios for decades, and Albarn just used a really small console. Or if you still disagree, take a look at the guideline again and figure out which of those TYPEs applies, because the Albums Project has reports on errors in infoboxes and editors will be attracted to this article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to this bit, this album is without a doubt NOT hip hop on the least bit. Keeping the genre tag as it was was a bad idea and just plain inaccurate. There's a discussion on it and I added my suggestion and the previous suggestion about it. --67.248.1.244 (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

NFC, pestering etc

I'm not trying to pester, I'm genuinely trying to explain the issue so there's no confusion in the future. The problem is/was that the files did not have explicit non-free use rationales, as are required by the non-free content criteria. The NFCC are deliberately very strict, and the purpose of rationales is to explain how the criteria are met in each individual usage of the file. What you did was add a file back into an article when there was no rationale for that use, meaning that you used non-free content in a way not consistent with our NFCC- very much A Bad Thing. If there was a full understanding of the NFCC by the various participants in this affair, there would not have been a problem. I'm explaining this now in the hope of preventing something similar in the future. J Milburn (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Really? You could have just explained the problem in the first place, instead of threatening to block multiple editors without explanation. And violating WP:3RR without sufficient edit summaries. And failing to be helpful, civil, or constructive in any way in the multiple discussions that were opened because of your edits. And thank you very much for informing me on this issue after the users CIreland and Courcelles have done your job for you on the ANI noticeboard (on which you were NO help whatsoever). There's a different between being "strict" and being "an ass who never communicates anything". God, how people like you become admins is a mystery to me. Thanks for nothing. Friginator (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Unaegbu

Sir, this page was created by Revolutionary Images and not Jeff Unaegbu himself. The sources cited are authentic. The books he wrote with Alexander Animalu and about Alexander Animalu, who is in wikipedia, are authentic. A World Campus Poetry Laureate and a Record holder of the longest poem in Nigeria is not notable? Then, sir, who is? Please did you check up on his books in the internet? Google "Jeff Unaegbu" and get a whole lot of materials on him. Thanks for listening and Happy New Year.Revolutionary Images (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeff Unaegbu/Archive

Was it an WP:ILLEGIT sockpuppet trying to deceive other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards? Or was it a WP:SOCK#LEGIT simply doing similar work? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)