Jump to content

User talk:Friginator/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

MCR Singles

As a fan of My Chemical Romance, I have purchased several of their singles online. I did not, however, see any evidence that two songs, "Vampires Will Never Hurt You" and "Our Lady of Sorrows" were ever singles. As of September 2, 2008, both had been listed as such. I made sure to point this out on their respective talk pages, and corrected many instances of the songs being referred to as "singles." I also suggested that both articles be merged with the main article.

  • It's a good thing you pointed out the lack of sources. "Our Lady of Sorrows" could be a single, but there is no proof that it ever was. I am going to ask Orfen if he can find a source that lists "Our Lady of Sorrows" as a single, since he created the page. If he can't I think the page should be redirected. However, "Vampires Will Never Hurt You" is most defiantly a single however since there is a music video. – Zntrip 00:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
"Vampires Will Never Hurt You" was never a single, as far as I can tell. I have found no evidence that it was, therefore making it an unverified claim. I will continue to edit it as such, unless of course you can find a reliable source to the contrary. I do not want an edit war, of course, but strongly believe in making statements proven to be true. If a statement cannot be confirmed as true, I will not hesitate to remove it. --Friginator 00:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I think there might be a misunderstanding concerning what constitutes a "single." "Vampires Will Nver Hurt You" does indeed have a music video, but I can find no record whatsoever that it or "Our Lady of Sorrows" were ever actually released as singles. I could be wrong, obviously, but see no reason to classify either song as a single without evidence (other than the music video, of course). --Friginator 00:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the article mentioned above says little to nothing about music videos. You must be thinking of another article. I have not seen any copies of "Vampires Will Never Hurt You" on eBay, but it is definitely possible that very few were produced, as the song was early on in My Chemical Romance's career. --Friginator 03:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I had originally created this article because Wikipedia had for a long time had it listed as a single. For creating false information, I apologize. I had created this article a long time ago and after your comment was brought to my attention I felt I would be bold and just redirect it to the album. (copied from Talk:Our Lady of Sorrows (song))  Orfen  T • C 03:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Orfen.--Friginator 03:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • As another comment, a music video doesn't automatically make a single. I have seen the copy of "Vampires Will Never Hurt You" in places on the internet before but I can't find them right now off the top of my head. I will be busy the next few days but I will be sure to look further for a source when I have the time if you both are not able to find one.  Orfen  T • C 03:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: it's been (almost exactly!) 2 weeks, and I still haven't found one shred of proof concerning the [supposed] single version of Vampires Will Never Hurt You on ebay or anywhere else. Though Zntrip still says he has seen it, I was bold and redirected it to the main article. After some thought, I have decided to keep it there due to the music video, which itself could warrant a separate page.

Another Update: Zntrip did indeed find an image of the supposed single. However, no source was given, and I was skeptical about it even being genuine.

Good job on finding an image, but it doesn't look official. It might be a promo, but I doubt it's official. The band logo is different, the Eyeball records logo is different, the band pictures are just screenshots from the music video, there's no copyright, the artwork has little to nothing to do with the song, and you gave no source. Frankly, though I respect your dedication to this article, I also doubt anywhere you got this is a credible source in the first place. If this was simply a promotional givaway, then why is it in a jewel cd case, and not a cardboard slipcase? I may be wrong about this, but I don't think this is real. I have decided to stop redirecting this page, however, because the music video itself might warrant a separate article anyway. --Friginator 03:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank your for your opinion Friginator, however I find your argument lacking substance. “Doesn't look official” and different logos do not mean that the CD is not legitimate. The fact is that Eyeball Records and My Chemical Romance may have had different logos, as they were relatively obscure. Like Phantoms, Forever is another obscure piece of the band’s discography, yet you do not deny its existence. I believe there is substantial evidence that it is real and therefore I am reverting your recent edits. – Zntrip 04:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
"Doesn't look real" was just my opinion, I didn't mean to imply it was a reliable fact. You mention substantial evidence is needed, but still you have no evidence other than a poor-quality photo with no source. I'm sorry, but I will keep changing things back until there is reason to pass this off as true. The reason I haven't brought up "Like Phantoms, Forever" is because I have never done any digging on it, and I KNOW it is very rare. Also, even if the supposed "single" WAS offered as a promotional item, it STILL doesn't count. The template even states, DO NOT ADD NEW SINGLES UNLESS CONFIRMED BY THE LABEL OR THE BAND. If you know a reliable source, by all means please give it. Otherwise I will continue to remove your unsourced information on something that may not even exist in the first place. --Friginator 04:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Whether you are skeptic or not is really not relevant. The photographs I found on eBay (the URL is no longer valid) are substantial evidence. I do in fact think that it is a promotional single, and there is nothing wrong with that. There are many promotional singles that have their own articles such “Aneurysm” by Nirvana or “Macy's Day Parade” by Green Day. – Zntrip 00:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Unsourced images from an invalid page are not "Substantial Evidence." Ebay is far from a reliable source, especially if the URL is no longer valid. Ebay sells thousands of bootleg CDs daily. Even promotional items need sources, and there is no evidence that this is official in the first place. If it's unsourced, I will remove it. --Friginator 00:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I’m still unconvinced. Would you agree to differ this discussion to the reliable sources noticeboard for a final decision? – Zntrip 00:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have posted our discussion over the single on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. --Friginator 01:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to bring to both of your attention this website. It is an archived version of the official My Chemical Romance website. The writing is very similar to the writing on that page, as is the pictures at the top are similar to the back cover of the single. Also if you scroll to the bottem there is an announcement saying that "Vampires" can be heard on the radio. If you look on the back cover of the single as well there is contact information which is the official information of the band and label.  Orfen  T • C 02:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Orfen. Now there's definitely a case for this being a promotional single. I still have my doubts, but this helps a lot. --Friginator 02:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In addition to the information about the song itself, the aesthetics of the website and the CD cover suggest a central theme for the band. The pictures of the band members are the same, as is the font. You would have to agree that a bootleg would be highly improbable. The bootlegger would have had to either go to the archive or have made the CD in 2002. The first scenario involves too much research for a bootlegger and the second seems odd since bootlegging an obscure indie band seems far from profitable. Additionally, I’m sure the would be bootlegger would have peddled more copies. I think the evidence is conclusive. – Zntrip 03:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about conclusive, seeing as how the website doesn't exist and therefore can't be cited as a source, but it's definitely enough to keep the images and info up there for the time being. Someone somewhere needs to find out more about this, because there's no official explanation as to when or where this was released. All we have to go on are images, and there needs to be more than that. My theory is that the band themselves made this as a demo cd before they had released Bullets. Again, I'm also not sure if this technically counts as a single, as it was probably just something the band gave out as a promo item at shows and such. I say we list this as an EP, along with Like Phantoms, Forever but I would need consensus. --Friginator 23:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the CD is a promotional single rather than an EP. One is that “Vampires Will Never Hurt You” is at the top of the cover and is the first song, like most singles. I also have another picture (I didn’t upload it) that says on the CD itself, “Rough Mix Promo / Not For Sale”. (I can e-mail it to you if you would like.) My opinion is it would be easier to have this information on the “Vampires Will Never Hurt You” page since the article already exists and a name for the EP (if that’s what it is) is not obvious. What makes Like Phantoms, Forever different from this is that it has a different name. Besides aren’t most CD singles really just EPs named after a song? – Zntrip 00:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much. But if it's not sold anywhere, and wasn't made by the record label is it a single? Eyeball Records is on there, but it's not the official logo and I'm guessing they didn't produce it. I'm not sure what that would be classified as, but singles are meant to measure the popularity of a song before it comes out by how many copies it sells. The cd is worth including in the article, but I think we should wait to put it under the "singles" category, as all the other singles were actually sold and confirmed by record labels and sales figures. I think we should leave the page under "related articles" and avoid messing with the other singles pages for the time being. --Friginator 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think Eyeball Records did in fact put this CD out. Sure the logo is different and it’s not supper snazzy, but you have to keep in mind that Eyeball Records was just a little indie record at the time and this was just one the many things it printed and probably didn’t think twice about. I still think it is a single, would you still object if I resorted “Vampires Will Never Hurt You” as a single? – Zntrip 21:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
For now, I'm okay with that, but more info is still needed. The main reason I'm worried about listing this as a single is that I don't think we're going to find anything else on it. Nobody seems to know anything about it, and though it's probably real, I doubt there's very much tangible evidence out there. I'll try contacting Eyeball about it. --Friginator 22:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Black Parade Genre Controversy

Main page: Talk: The Black Parade

My Chemical Romance is often seen as "Emo," and thus their fans and/or critics across the internet are constantly debating over this classification. Their most recent album, "The Black Parade," also was subject to the same arguments. In August 2008, I proposed what I saw as a neutral way to control this controversy. I suggested Wikipedia's policy on this issue be to neither classify the album as emo, nor state that it is NOT emo. This discussion was orginally posted on the talk page for "The Black Parade."

Needless to say, the genre of the album keeps getting changed to emo, and almost immediately changed back, only to be changed again and so on. My proposal is that it be accepted either way. I don't see any harm either way, and I think there are more important things to do on Wikipedia than cause an endless edit war about something completely arbitrary. There is no official genre for almost any album. It's all open to interpretation. I think we need to list the genre as simply, "Rock," since that is the only status the band has given its work. The problem is that there is no evidence either way, and therefore no reason to state it as encyclopedic fact. Let's just all just say from now on that the album is NOT classified as "emo," due to a complete and utter lack of evidence. However, I do not have any personal opinions either way, I just see this as the only way to minimize the article being changed back and forth. I'm not quite sure how we would go about making a desicion like that, but I'm sure there could be a way.--Friginator 2:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • While I understand your concern the genre for emo is actually sourced and should be included. That is why I keep changing it back. It is sourced through the allmusic review of the album. All of the genres must be sourced. Reliable sources would have to be provided saying this album wasn't emo if that genre was to become disputed. The genres listed currently aren't just genres I or other users feel this album is like. It is sourced by allmusic which is what they say the album sounds like. Genres require sources other than the band to classify for sure what it is. All information needs to be sourced by a reliable source and the genres provided were provided by a professional reviewer.  Orfen  T • C 20:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Or, to put it succinctly, WP:BURDEN states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". While I feel the subject does qualify as emo music, I'd need to find some article (preferably in a music magazine like Rolling Stone) that specifically called The Black Parade emo. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Orfen: Though I would obviously say that Allmusic.com is a good source of info, I don't see how their interpretations could be seen as an official designation of Genre. In my opinion, the genre should simply be changed to "Rock," because that is the only genre acknowledged by all parties, including the band themselves. Since the band has specifically stated that they are NOT emo, and that neither is this particular album, I would say there is good evidence against the inclusion. I do agree that if Rolling Stone actually classified the album as emo, a good case could be made. If a statement is open to interpretation, it should by not be included in an encyclopedic article. --Friginator 20:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The band themselves don't count as a reliable source though. We cannot use primary sources for things such as genres. We need to use the opinions of reliable music critics to decide what we include in Wikipedia not the ediotors or the band. Yes, the band's opinion is worth mentioning (although I am not sure if there is something about them denying the term emo specifically for The Black Parade) but they ultimately don't decide on Wikipedia what their album sounds like. Yes, they made it, but it is up to the critics to decide for us what the album is classified as regardless of our opinions. Whether we believe if this album can be classified as emo having sourced information makes for a better article and a better encyclopedia.  Orfen  T • C 05:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
My problem with the genre change, though, is that "genre" is an opinion, and can't be stated as a fact either way. The album got generally positive reviews from critics, but we don't state that the album was "good" or "bad," because this is not fact. I don't think that the band themselves are any less reliable than allmusic.com. We could always note the critics' interpretations, but we could not verify their opinions as fact. Also, the term "emo" is so specific that it couldn't apply to the entire album. One song ["Mama"] incorporates Russian polka, but this is not the subgenre either. With virtually every Wikipedia article on music, there are debates over genre and subgenre, which is why I think that the entire situation has gotten out of hand, and Wikipedia needs to separate all the opinions from the facts. --Friginator 29:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The genres source by reliable sources who are considered experts in their field aren't just considered opinion. Those are reliable facts and as such we should list them. If there is a dispute then the dispute should be listed but there needs to be reliable sources showing a dispute. This isn't an encyclopedia that tells the opinion of its users but rather what published experts in the field have listed as their interpretation. Allmusic or any other website hasn't listed the genre of the album as Russian polka. Yes, some mention the fact that "Mama" is a different song for the band and list why but even then I'm not sure if it is specifically labeled as Russian polka. We can't add how we think the album sounds. We have to add how respected publishers feel the album sounds. Yes, there are sometimes a lot of bias in the disputes on talk pages but in the end we are creating an encyclopedia based on the published views of others. We can't let how we think an album sounds or how we feel a band should be labeled come into play when making an article. Excluding the genre emo would be POV since we wouldn't be covering a neutral POV as we have obviously made our own decisions on how we think the album or the band sounds.  Orfen  T • C 03:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Obviously I disagree for the same reasons as before, but more importantly, IGN's review specifically states that this particular album is not emo, whereas Allmusic.com (the given source) only has "emo" listed as one of the many styles. Allmusic classifies the genre, however, as simply "Rock." Again, the opinions of others should not be listed as fact, despite who these others are. Not including a genre is not POV or any type of bias. It would be POV to state that the genre is not "emo", but refusing to choose a side either way is just staying neutral. --Friginator 23:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • You say to look at your talk page but I have already read this. How can you refuse to choose a side? You can't. Not listing means you are saying it isn't emo. Listing it is saying it is. You can't just not take a side. One needs to be taken based on the reliable sources. IGN actually says "My Chemical Romance is NOT an emo band. At least that's what they want you to believe. Not only have the members of the band said so publicly, but they are going out of their way to back up those words with their music." Also some more sources to add are AOL and FYE. I don't understand how not including it as a genre means it isn't emo. There are also a couple non-music related sources that say the album is emo and part of an emo movement. The band article also lists them as emo. I don't understand why the sources don't point to emo.  Orfen  T • C 01:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The reason I referred you back to my talk page is that I feel there are better ways to discuss this than through edit wars. The IGN quote you mentioned does make a specific case against the "emo" classification for this specific album, even if it doesn't insist upon it. As long as there are reliable sources, and something is open to interpretation, you can't just go around stating it as fact. Encyclopedias are based on stating the facts, not the opinions. "Emo" is an opinion, and if there are conflicting sources then you can't pick sides. No one is suggesting that Wikipedia insist that it is not emo, but until there is some sort of infallible proof that the album is unarguably emo, we can't go around stating what only SOME of the critics interpret. What I don't understand is why you think staying neutral is in itself some kind of bias. How can the album meet criteria for the "emo" genre if those criteria don't exist? There's no specific way to verify arbitrary claims. If something can't be proven, you don't state it to be true on an encyclopedia. Reviews and consensus don't count as proof of something, especially if other reviews and consensus point otherwise. About your new sources: neither actually reviews the album, they both just cite a review from allmusic that you already cited. Plus, neither of them list "emo" as the genre, just one of several styles. Even if you are going to go against the very purpose of having an Encyclopedia, you still would have to come up with ONE reliable source stating that this album IS emo, which you still have not. Coming to conclusions like that because-- "I don't see why the [as of yet ungiven] sources don't point to emo" --violates WP:OR.--Friginator 03:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is based on second party sources. The allmusic source is a second party source. The genre isn't listed in the review but it is listed as a style of the album. Not the band. It is a style for the album. Also it is a covered subject in the UK where it is believed a suicide took place due to the "emo" nature of the album. Located here. Saying that the second party sources do not indicate this album is emo is ignoring the sources completely.  Orfen  T • C 02:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The suicide article/incident has absolutely nothing to do with this. A suicide report is not an appropriate source for defining a music genre. Anyway, "emo" would be (in your previous examples) from a secondary source, but I don't see how that's relevant either. For example I could find several secondary sources implying "Onions taste bad," but I wouldn't state that insinuation as fact on the "Onion" page. The way onions taste is up to the taster, just like whether music is "emo" or not is up to the listener. It's an opinion, and just because some second party sources have that opinion doesn't make it a fact. That's why we stay neutral. Wikipedia gets all its credibility from the credibility of secondary sources, but it still only states the facts. That's why Dictionaries, Textbooks and Encyclopedias exist. To separate the facts from the opinions so others can learn enough to form their own opinions. --Friginator 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • You still don't understand. Yes, everyone has their own opinion as to what an album sounds like. If in the instance experts believe the album sounds emo then it should be stated. You almost seem like you're suggesting that all genres are based upon personal opinion. Well then why not remove all the genres? Why do you only have problem with the emo genre which is covered in secondary sources. Wikipedia is based upon the things secondary sources write. Allmusic lists the album as emo. Listing it as such isn't POV, not listing it even after a reliable secondary source lists it as such is POV. It is saying "I don't think this album sounds like emo and think it is just someone else's opinion so shouldn't be listed". You say that Wikipedia gets its credibility from the credibility of secondary sources. Allmusic is a credible reliable source. How is the album sounding like emo an opinion while the album sounding like rock is a fact? You are picking out certain genres you feel apply to album and not targeting those. Your argument is that the emo genre is an opinion but then doesn't that make all the genres listed an opinion of allmusic? Your example of onions is different from what is the case here. You are talking more about reviews which if you look there are good and bad reviews for this album which is listed. Genres are decided not by my opinion or yours but by that of reliable secondary sources. Allmusic is a reliable secondary source, their opinion should be listed. If it needs a source then all it takes is a reference to the allmusic review.  Orfen  T • C 04:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
If a statement 1. is open to interpretation 2. can't be proven, and 3. is almost unique to every person who states it, it's an opinion. If all genre classifications were as arbitrary as this one, then NOT removing them would be POV, and YES I would want them taken down if a large amount of people disagreed with their validity. But everyone agrees that the album is a "rock" album, and there's no evidence to the contrary, so the genre can be listed as "rock." This is still not to mention whether the sources you gave that supposedly have that opinion (though they don't state it outright) are reliable or not. I also disagree with your choice to cite an editorial about why people commit suicide, as if it knows more about the album than the sites that actually listened to it carefully and reviewed it. The IGN review I mentioned is actually about the album, and actually mentions whether it's emo or not. However, you still forget that my intention is not to have the album classified as "NON-emo." My intention is to not take a side in this big controversy. --Friginator 06:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Definitely. this argument is getting repetetive. --Friginator 05:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

When Reverting Vandalism...

Thanks, Enigma, though really this was just carelessness on my part. --Friginator 08:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Thanks for suggesting it. :) --Friginator 03:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained Revert

Welcome to Wikipedia yourself. I reverted the page because the new info was unsourced, and there was no evidence to it being true in the first place. See the MCR Singles section. Thank you. --Friginator 01:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

1973 Chilean coup d'état

No. What's wrong is how you vandalized 1973 Chilean coup d'état. Please go away. --Friginator 22:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Tabernacle Township: Vandalism?

I enjoy searching for vandalism on the recent changes page, reverting any I find. Recently, I reverted edits on Tabernacle Township when I saw someone had vandalized the article. Unfortunately, I accidentally reverted an edit that had deleted the vandalism. This meant that I had left the page vandalized instead of fixing it. Soon, editor Faethon Ghost spotted this. He then assumed that I had either reverted the wrong page intentionally, or that I had vandalized it in the first place:

I'm sorry that it looked like I vandalized Tabernacle Township, New Jersey. In reality I was trying to revert vandalism (from 15 September 2008 by 64.154.241.166), but instead ended up reverting a newer version of the page (from 17 September 2008 by 68.36.113.67) which had removed the vandalism already. I'm sorry for my carelessness, and hope that this clears things up. --Friginator 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you're still misunderstanding this situation. I'm not sure why you think that I vandalized Tabernacle Township or intentionally reverted it like that. It was a careless mistake. Just look at the pages I already told you about. I swear I had nothing to do with the page being vandalized. All I did was revert to the wrong page, and for that I apologize. I really am trying to help improve Wikipedia. I've made mistakes in the past, but I swear that I never vandalized a single article. I certainly hope you're making a mistake, and not actually trying to harass me for no reason. Thank you.--Friginator 20:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Update: As far as I can tell, the one who first vandalized to page was 64.154.241.166. Check the history page. I really do hope you respond to these messages, because I'm a bit confused as to why you're so convinced I did this intentionally. I don't want any lingering issues between me and another user. --Friginator 22:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I did some research on Faethon Ghost.

Another update: Wow, do I feel stupid. For a minute there I almost actually felt bad about my mistake. Now I realize that you really do like harassing people for no good reason. You're just a hypocrite who insults people and vandalizes Red Sox pages, saying that they look like pigs. When that vandalism got reverted, you posted it again 3 more times, ([1], [2], and [3]), eventually getting yourself blocked. Incidentally, I'm guessing you're a Yankees fan. You then edit away all of your criticism (including the evidence that you were ever blocked for said vandalism), replacing it with friendly greetings.You're on my Wall of Shame now for vandalism, BTW. --Friginator 04:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • How dare you call ME the vandal or a Yankees fan. I am neither. Paul Byrd does have a pig nose and closely resembles a swine so that is why I made those edits. It was considered to be original research by other users which is why it was reverted. You are the one adding disgusting things about filthy accidents that have no place on Wikipedia. Your efforts to appear as a non-vandal just go to show what a true vanalism lover you really are. Stop arguing with me and leave me alone. I will be watching you and your future edits so I might quickly stop more of your vandalisms in the future. Also, you will take me off your "wall of shame" or else I will bring your vandalisms to the attention of people less reasonable than I. I suggest you cooperate. Faethon Ghost (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Faethon Ghost then went on to vandalize my user page. He changed my userboxes to things like "This user loves Miley Cyrus" and "This user supports John McCain," apparently trying to spite me. He also changed the title of this discussion from "Tabernacle Township: Vandalism?" to Tabernacle Township: Vandalism by Friginator!"

You are a vandal, especially after you vandalized my user page (shortly after you left your message). Don't do it again. I made a mistake. You called someone a pig repeatedly and got blocked for it. I will report you if you continue to harass me unprovoked. I admit my tone may have been innapropriate in my last message, but it did not violate any policies, and was simply a response to your abusive attitude. I honestly don't care if you monitor my future edits, because I really don't plan on commiting vandalism. You will remain on my Wall of Shame for the time being, because you vandalized several pages repeatedly and don't seem to be very sorry about it. It's kind of hard to expose my vandalism if I've commited none. --Friginator 22:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Bwilkins for setting things straight. I will leave the matter alone but I will continue to watch Friginator for future vandalisms to small New Jersey towns. As to you Friginator, I hope that we can work together in the future to prevent vandalisms once you take me off your wall of shame as instructed by Bwilkins. Also, those userboxes I added to your page were meant for my page. I accidentally put them on yours and when I noticed it I quickly removed them and placed them on mine. In the future please assume good faith. Faethon Ghost (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
As for the wall of shame: I never passed off false info, never said anything bad about the users listed (I never even referred to them as vandals), and I didn't read a single policy that seemed to contradict the WOS. I'm definitely considering taking it down, but only because I don't want to deal with these complaints 24/7. In the future, I will try to be nicer, and hope that situations like this are avoided. :) --Friginator 22:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Update: I've officially torn down the Wall of Shame, your name and all. It ended up doing nothing but starting pointless arguments. Thanks. --Friginator 00:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


Not Cool, Friginator

I didn't like that you removed the ..Booya! on the Baxter Humby article, but reading your userpage you're a really cool guy with opinions I agree with many of your opinions and am willing to consider your viewpoints on those I don't. Anyways though it still wasn't cool, but I understand. I forgive you. And we can leave the ..Booya! out since it'd cause problems in the long run, I'm sure. Thanks for your time and for reading this message. --129.97.227.170 (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, 129.97.227.170, but a lot of people could see writing "Booya!" in the middle of an article as borderline vandalism. Maybe the phrase is relevant to that person, I dont know, but I still have a hard time thinking it was constructive. Thanks. --Friginator 03:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wall of Shame

Recently, I had the idea to organize all the incidents of vandalism I had found into a "Wall of Shame," archiving the name of the vandal, the page vandalized, the page version etc. I had started adding the information when I ran into other editors that were offended by this idea, as shown below.

  • A Wall of Shame? Even criminals can be re-integrated into society, and Wikipedia is not an opportunity to a) hang deer heads in your library or b) out sex offenders upon release from prison. I'd say take down your Wall of Shame PDQ. Agreeably, the original edit reversion issue could have been handled better from both sides, but you escalated the situation by hanging him on your Wall of Shame (a very uncivil action). I would think that you should post an apology on the talk page of EVERY editor on your Wall once you have removed it. Feel free to say "although I will continue to monitor for continued possible vandalism, I do actually look forward to your positive edits in Wikipedia" or something like that. You've even been advised that your WoS is the antecedent to the behaviour by at least one other editor, so I'm not sure why you raise a WQA with a tone of surprise...BMW(drive) 11:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I'd still like to hear from an administrator, but I don't want the wall of shame to personally offend anyone. I figured that, since there's already a list of IP adresses that have been used for vandalism, that this wasn't really a big deal. I tried to be civil about it though, and stated exactly what I meant by it. I certainly wouldn't liken it to "hanging deer heads in my library" or "outing sex offenders upon release from prison." I try to make it clear that if someone is generally making constructive edits, and the vandalism that I will take their names off. Their name on the wall is not permanent, as outlined on my user page under "Policies."
  • How about I raise an AN/I? It breaks every known rule on Wikipedia, including WP:AGF (those "vandals" might have changed their stripes), WP:CIVIL (pretty obvious)...would that actually make you feel better? As an almost 3-yr editor on Wikipedia, and one who patrols WQA, I have never been more offended (other than being called a racist) than by your wall.
I would be fine with getting an admin involved. I don't believe the wall has broken any rules, but it's their word against mine. I try to adhere to WP:AGF, and if any of the editors listed feel that they're only making constructive changes, and there is evidence, I will take them off the wall. I'm sorry you're offended, but I don't see how I implied that you are racist. What is it that offends you? I don't even expect for others to see the wall, much less feel personally insulted. I'm really surprised that something that minor can upset people like this. I would say that the list is civil, because I didn't state any opinion either way, didn't attack them, didn't condemn them, and didn't even call them vandals in the first place. If a "vandal" has changed their stripes, then they can contact me and be taken off the wall.
"You've even been advised that your WoS is the antecedent to the behaviour by at least one other editor, so I'm not sure why you raise a WQA with a tone of surprise."
I've actually never gotten any feedback about the WoS, (other than threats from Faethon Ghost) so I assumed it wasn't bothering anybody. Also, I don't really see how I mishandled the situation with User: Faethon Ghost. It would help to know what I did wrong, so I can avoid it in the future. I didn't add him to the wall of shame for personal reasons, and not to provoke him. Only because of the repeated vandalism of Paul Byrd, List of pigs and my user page. Faethon Ghost 1) did not seem to be too sorry about his vandalism 2)the vandalism was less than a month ago and 3)Faethon Ghost really hasn't done too much since then, so I don't have much to go by.
  • Consider yourself having been provided feedback. I've never run into you until now, or else I would have commented before. You do realize, that your commenting on his past vandalism (in a very very snarky manner) caused him to attack you back ... you caused the situation by saying you no longer felt bad about the issue.
Again, I'm sorry about being snarky there, and I DON'T feel as bad now that I realize he was just trying to harass me. I don't see why, seeing as I haven't insulted you or any of the people on the wall (except when I called Faethon Ghost a hypocrite). I didn't cause the situation, I just escalated it by responding with agression. My bad.
"I would think that you should post an apology on the talk page of EVERY editor on your Wall once you have removed it. Feel free to say 'although I will continue to monitor for continued possible vandalism, I do actually look forward to your positive edits in Wikipedia'"
1) Most of the users are just sockpuppets that are banned indefinitely 2) I don't feel an apology is needed. I didn't say anything bad about them, didn't condemn them, didn't personally attack them, and didn't pass off any false information. I don't see the Wall of Shame as anything important, but I promise as soon as I get a complaint from an admin I will tear down the wall. :) --Friginator 21:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything on either of those pages that contradicts the wall of shame. If you could cite specific points that would help. Also, I do like to think that admins can solve problems without sanctioning people first. --Friginator 22:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Frig, you came to WQA with a problem. That problem was in part caused by your Wall of Shame. A longtime, 3rd party editor came and is disturbed by your WoS, and in fact dismisses your WQA because of your WoS, and you still like to argue about it? One admin I spoke to says "I think that it's pretty unnecessary" and recommends that I actually take YOU to WQA over it. If you want, I'll let you know what the others say...but I would think it's unneccessary, or do you like confrontation? BMW(drive) 23:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I DON'T want to argue about it. At this point I just want to know if it's going to get me in trouble. I don't really think it's a big deal, but I'm not an admin. I don't like confrontation, I like knowing if I'm doing something wrong. I wasn't trying to confront you, I was just asking for help regarding an official descision. I'm taking the wall down if it's going to cause this much trouble. Sorry if I offended you. --Friginator 00:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This Wall ended up causing more problems than it solved, and I was unsure of whether it could actually get me in trouble. I have torn down the Wall, and I apologize to any of the editors it offended.

Not Cool Friginator: Part 2

Faethon Ghost continues to waste my time...

  • This is a rebuttal to Friginator's lies above. Quotes are from Friginator.
"I've actually never gotten any feedback about the WoS, (other than threats from Faethon Ghost)"
  • I did not threaten you, I stated a fact. Your bragging about putting me on your pathetic 'Wall of Shame' was more of a threat than anything.
Admittedly, I shouldn't have brought the WOS into the argument. It was irrelevant and I am sorry. However, you did not once ASK me to take the wall down. You TOLD me that if i didn't take it down you would expose my vandalism to "less reasonable people." That could be considered a threat.
"I don't even expect for others to see the wall"
  • Is that why you bragged about it on my Talk page?
I bragged about it on your talk page because I lost my temper. Again, I regret ever mentioning it because it was irrelevant. What I meant by the above statement was that very few people are going to see it in the first place, so why should it be a big deal?
"I didn't cause the situation"
  • Completely incorrect. I would have never run into you had you not vandalized the Tabernacle Township article. Instead of just listening to my message and being quiet, you start a huge mess by insisting that you are not a vandal and parade yourself around as a vandalism hunter, complete with hanging the heads of suspected vandals on your 'Wall of Shame', when in fact you are the true vandal all along.
Gah! Come on! I never vandalized it! Just look at the evidence I gave you! I was trying to set things straight when you began insisting I did this on purpose!

"I don't like confrontation. I like knowing if I'm doing something wrong."

  • This is, as you would say 'hard to believe', seeing as you randomly vandalize a page, insist that you didn't do it on purpose, going to the absurd point of saying that you were trying to revert the vandalism, escalate it to no end, and then argue needlessly about it with me and other editors.
Escalate it to no end? I'm trying to stop this pointless arguing. That's why I took down the WOS. I was hoping that you would no longer feel the need to harass me like this. And I never vandalized anything. Look at the pages I cited earlier.
  • Conclusion: Friginator is a proven vandal and enjoys starting pointless arguments about whether he is or is not, and then goads other people into arguments by accusing them of past vandalisms, stating that they occurred less than a month ago, when really it was on 13 August 2008, which is well OVER a month ago. I already told him it was original research and not vandalism, and I took my block and stopped doing original research on the appearance of MLB pitchers. Thank you for wasting my and other editors' time by trying to wake you up and clear my righteous name. Case closed, leave me alone. And I hope you get over the death of Cap to ease the pain of your insomnia just like you will get over your obsession with being a vandal and pretending that you just troll the recent changes page looking for vandalism to correct, when in auctuality you look for vandalism to reinsert into articles. Faethon Ghost (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Proven vandal? Where are you getting this from? At the time, your vandalism was about a month old, but I don't want to argue about that or any other part of this stupid debate that is wasting my time. I'm serious this time. If you leave me any more of these stupid messages again, I will delete them. Please go away.
  • Faeton...now you're pushing the whole boundaries of WP:AGFand WP:CIVIL. You're also very obviously wrong, based on the pattern of editing. If you're pissed because you were originally called a vandal, get over it quickly or I can see a future Wikipedia with your ID as blocked. You do have a history as a vandal, but you appeared to have changed your ways. I have yet to find any real evidence that Frig is or has been one. Really, give it up and move on. BMW(drive) 21:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that "very recent major vandalism similar issue" was hardly vandalism. It was just [yet another] careless mistake of mine. Sorry about that. Still, standing up for me, agreeing that I'm not a vandal and then crossing it out: that kind of hurts.

A further recommendation

  • First, when you try and to a revert, you will often get an edit conflict. Keep a watch out for those. Secondly, reversion is VERY difficult to do without a tool ... such as WP:TWINKLE. It prevents you from reverting an already reverted article. Use it very carefully if you do use it - you can be banned for misuse. BMW(drive) 16:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I actually already have Rollback, and that makes it much easier. I've tried Twinkle, but I have found it only works when I use Firefox (which I find inconvenient in the first place). Again, I will try to be much more careful in the future, but it seems that my problem is when IP users are involved. I'm not sure if it's dysexlia or what, but if I try to go too fast I get all the numbers mixed up. Another problem is the lack of edit summaries. Generally when a registered user reverts vandalism, that's what the edit summary says. IP users rarely go to the trouble of writing that out when correcting pages, and it ends up confusing me. I think the key is just for me to slow down when reverting. Thanks for the suggestion though. --Friginator 20:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I crossed out my comment because in your attempt to be speedy, you end up reverting to the vandalized versions, which therefore in itself can be classified as vandalism. Once a month, maybe it's a mistake ... it looks real bad when it happens 3 times in a week. Slow down, take it easy, read carefully ... BMW(drive) 11:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. It looks really bad. I hope it's not considered vandalism, seeing as the edits were careless mistakes (though clearly that's not the impression it gives people).

When you find text removal, read the text before reverting

  • This edit to bagpipes removed some thoroughly inappropriate text, then you just put it back. If you'd taken even a cursory glance at the text, you would have known that it was inappropriate. I initially thought you were reverting vandalism, so I did this edit, but when I checked the diffs more carefully I discovered that you (accidentally) put the vandalism back. There is no need to rush when doing anti-vandalism work ... please be more careful in the future. Graham87 03:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It's only the 3rd time this week he's reverted someone else's reversion, and ended up reverting back to a vandalized version.  :-) Vandal-fighting is good. Fighting the vandal-fighters is not so good. BMW(drive) 11:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Wow. I had no idea how bad this problem of mine was. 3 times in a week? I'm so sorry. I've really got to be much more careful. Thanks for letting me know, guys.

Please consider also warning vandals

  • Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia. Could you also please consider using our vandal warning system [4]? First offenses get a "test1," then a "test2," followed by a "test3" and "test4." At the end of this, if the vandal persists, he or she merits blocking for a period of time. If you do this, it will greatly help us in decreasing vandalism on Wikipedia. Much thanks, -- Kukini háblame aquí 21:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. The reason I haven't been warning them was because I was confused by the warning system, and decided not to mess with it. In retrospect that was a tad irresponsible of me, and I'll try to warn people from now on (assuming I can remember the system).

{{userinfo}}

==Editing concerns==

#{{subst:uw-test1}} --~~~~

#{{subst:uw-test2}} --~~~~

#{{subst:uw-test3}} --~~~~

#{{subst:uw-test4}} --~~~~

October 2008

WP:TALK specifically instructs users not to blank their talk pages. Under the section, Technical and format standards it is stated,
"Archive — do not delete: When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is no longer being discussed, do not delete the content — archive it. See Help:Archiving a talk page for details on why and how to."
I hope that clears things up. The examples it gives pertain to length or relevance, but those are the only reasons for someone to delete Talk Page. Unless they're trying to hide something, of course, but that itself violates other guidelines laid out under the Central points section on the same page I already pointed out. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The "Archive - do not delete" quotation applies to Article Talk Pages rather than User Talk Pages; the User Talk Pages section begins on the next line down, and says "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users." There is no harm in blanking one's own Talk Page, since the previous contents can still be examined if necessary through the page history. Fenneck (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Update: I see that Matty has already addressed this long ago. My apologies for flogging a dead horse and being too inattentive to look beyond the next horizontal line. Fenneck (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Your messages on User talk:206.116.63.240

  • I'm going to have to disagree with that, as underneath technical and format standards there is a section on user talk pages which states,
"Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users."
The technical and format standards for removal of content only apply to article/portal/template/wikipedia. I'd ask you retract your comments (and subsequently my reply to your comments) from this users talk page, he hasn't had the best of starts and i've got a feeling this might just push him to leaving. Thank you, Matty (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Good point, though now I'm very confused about this whole thing. One policy tells users not to blank talk pages, while another assures there's nothing wrong with it. I would have to be an idiot to keep arguing about something this pointless. As for removing my comments, 206.116.63.240 has already blanked the page again in retribution, even insulting me in the edit summary. I would be glad to see him "pushed to leaving", seeing as he has done nothing but vandalize Wikipedia from day one, constantly being abusive and obnoxious to editors that actually contribute. I'm not going to change my opinion because it might hurt the feelings of an anonymous vandal. Thanks. --Friginator (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You're the vandal. Your interpretation of policy is erroneous - this is not an insult but a statement of fact. It is not mine but your history that shows a pattern of abusive and obnoxious behaviour, you get called on it every time and then you do it some more. As for my edit summaries, behind each one that contains sarcasm you will find blatant vandalism of the kind that makes you ask what kind of person would even bother to waste the half a calorie of finger power to create it. Not constructive edits. But, as I've said before, WikiBullies like you are the new face of Wikipedia; a growing segment of the admin corps is composed of your kind, and there is no sign of reversal in sight. That is why I quit using my account a year ago and why I'm not even editing anonymously anymore. Enjoy wallowing in the mire that you are creating. And, when you diatribe my talk page in reply, I'll blank it without even reading it, because I can and because I am still allowed to. Deal with it. Escalate or drop - that is your complete choice set. 206.116.63.240 (talk) 04:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sick of arguing about this. I really am, but if you want me to escalate this, I will go ahead and post one final message on this matter. I've dropped this a long time ago, seeing as you clearly are incapable of civility or taking critisicm whatsoever, so I will not even attempt to post this on your talk page. Anyway, first off: Interpretations cannot be right nor wrong. They're opinions and can't be proven either way. Secondly: Userspace vandlism is vandalism nonetheless. Third: when have I ever vandalised anything? (Faethon, please don't answer this. We all know what you think.) You've been warned about not being civil and blanking your talk page constantly, but clearly all editors on this site can do is hope that you can try to be nice to other people. Thanks. --Friginator (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy section

  • Thanks for your input, but the paragraph in question, shown below, is biased towards Lehman Brothers' CEO Mr. Fuld, and even trys to explain the situation on behalf of Mr Fuld to disarm the situation. From the context of Rep. Waxman's question, he was pointing out the disproportional remuneration of Mr. Fuld for managing a company into eventual bankruptcy. After the bankruptcy and subsequent bailout, the remuneration in cash or stock Mr. Fuld and the other executives have taken, seems to be unfairy funded by the tax payers as pointed out by Rep. Waxman. The point of the edit was to put less emphasis to Mr. Fuld's perspective, and bring more balance from weighting Rep. Waxman's original question.
Paragraph in question:
On October 6, 2008, CEO Richard Fuld testified before Congress. Rep. Waxman pointed to an idea of a compensation package that Fuld presumable received totaling $480 million over 8 years including the time leading to bankruptcy. Waxman said to Fuld, "My question is a simple one. Is this fair?" Fuld explained that he was not actually paid that total of cash. He actually received options and other incentives that later proved to be worthless.
Proposed edit: reverse to the edit previous to the one in question
On October 6, 2008, CEO Richard Fuld testified before Congress. Rep. Waxman pointed out that Fuld had made nearly $500M since 2000, a salary incomprehensible to the average taxpayer, while Fuld was guiding Lehman to bankruptcy. Waxman said to Fuld, "My question is a simple one. Is this fair?" Fuld did not give a straight answer to the question, but only a meandering reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.93.64 (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My bad

No worries. Before I started using Twinkle I had this exact same problem. Thanks. --Friginator (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Pats1

Sorry about that, and thanks for setting things straight. --Friginator (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:

  • You may have noticed that, by the time I got your message, I had already removed the warning from your talk page. Huggle won't let me tag without a notification. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: X7

  • Template:X7 IS a Sandbox, its there so people can edit it...

Welcome to the Wikipedia Sandbox! This page allows you to carry out experiments. To edit, click here or click the tab edit this page above (or the views section for obscure browsers), make your changes and click the Save page button when finished. Content will not stay permanently; this page is automatically cleaned every 12 hours." Template:X7

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

-- $user log (Talk) @ 06:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rothman

Peter Lamborn Wilson

  • That's okay. Should have logged in first. I wrote "vandalized" because I considered your editing illegitimate.

Hiram (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Remember to assume good faith!

  • (In reference to your revert at George Heriot's School:) I realize that an anonymous editor adding a terrorist to the list of alumni of a school rings alarm bells, but it's always worth a quick check to see if it's true. On this occasion, a google for '"John the Painter" George Heriot's' turned up a book review from The Times linking John the Painter and the school. I've re-added the information. Keep up the good work, though! :-) Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 00:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

List of NCIS episodes revert

Be careful

  • It has happened to me in the past, That when I reverted vandalism and left a warning, I later discovered I did not revert it before anyone else. Sometimes this happens with Twinkle, Be careful about giving warnings on pages I have reverted, Happy Holidays --Frankie0607 (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Maria Canals Barrera

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Friginator/Archive_1&oldid=1190125853"