User talk:Friginator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hey, I'm Friginator. Have Questions? Comments? Possibly a subpoena? Let it be known here. Note that my comments are italicized and bulleted. Why? Because it pleases me. It pleases me in a filthy, filthy way. But ignore that! You probably have something to say. Please leave all new messages at the bottom of the page.

Your revert[edit]

Dear Friginator, the logic for keeping Frequency Unknown within the Queensrÿche catalog was intended to make it clearer to people what the place of Tate's lineup is. You reverted my edits to relate Frequency Unknown and The Key with the argument that "A second, (arbitrary) chronology is just going to confuse people." I disagree to this for the following reasons:

  • It's not arbitrary. If one and the same lineup first releases an album under the Queensrÿche moniker and then using a different band name, it's still being performed by the same lineup and therefore it doesn't make sense to accredit that first album to them.
  • It's more confusing to force Frequency Unknown in a lineup in which every other album had only smaller changes in the lineup, then one album with a completely different lineup save for one band member, and then go back to the rest of the lineup, rather than clarifying to people that Frequency Unkown was made by this lineup and they have now gone on under a different name.

Therefore, I feel it does make sense to make the connection between Frequency Unknown and The Key more explicit than it is now. If you disagree, I would like to understand the argumentation behind it. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Was "Frequency Unknown" a Queensrÿche album? Yes. Is "The Key" a Queensrÿche album? No. Seems pretty self-explanatory. If you wanted to mention somewhere in the article body that they share most of the same musicians, that would be fine with me. Friginator (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WTF m8?[edit]

I didn't even do those things! I DON'T EVEN LIKE MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE! Why are you saying I did those things when I know I didn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.181.254 (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Well, as far as I can tell, someone with your IP Address removed content without explanation from three articles related to the band My Chemical Romance way back in August 2012. So I posted a few warnings on your page. It might not have been you, but your edit history can be found here, showing that someone with a 98.19.181.254 IP removed content without explanation. I'm not holding a grudge, if that's what you mean. Friginator (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Whoseresponsiblethis02.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Whoseresponsiblethis02.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Godzilla Review[edit]

Rotten Tomatoes only counts reviews as positive or negative, so using that metric alone to judge is reviews were positive or mixed is inaccurate. Godzilla's average score is only 6.6/10. To illustrate, a movie with ten 3-star reviews would have a 100% on RT, while a movie with six 5-star reviews and four 2-star reviews would only have 60%, even though the first movie would have an average rating of 3 stars, and the second 3.8 stars. Most of the sources used for the review summary clearly state that most reviews have been mixed, with even the positive reviews noting large flaws in the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaSolipsist (talkcontribs) 23:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm aware of how Rotten Tomatoes works, and I should probably point out that your analysis of their system is irrelevant when it comes to the "certified fresh" rating. According to the Rotten Tomatoes website, "Movies and TV shows are Certified Fresh with a steady Tomatometer of 75% or higher after a set amount of reviews (80 for wide-release movies, 40 for limited-release movies, 20 for TV shows), including 5 reviews from Top Critics." So your examples of movies that have, say, ten reviews don't apply. The film in question has 286 reviews. And stating that, in your words, "even the positive reviews [noted] large flaws in the movie" is ridiculous for two reasons. The first reason is that any good reviewer will note the flaws in a film. Second, it honestly sounds like the issue here lies with your analysis of the reviews, and not what is verifiable. Metacritic also states "Generally favorable reviews." You opined that Rotten Tomatoes' system is flawed because they only count things as "positive" or "negative"? Well, Metacritic isn't like that. If something gets mixed reviews, Metacritic will say mixed. So I think the burden lies on you to not only find sources that definitively and objectively call the reception to the film "mixed", but also for those sources to be more notable and trustworthy than both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. I doubt that is going to happen. Friginator (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)