User talk:IllaZilla/Archive 4

Article Quality

Hey IllaZilla. Do you have any experience in how to go about updating the quality of a punk article? cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 21:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure! Are you looking to improve/advance a particular article, or have you already worked on one & want it reassessed? --IllaZilla (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Straight edge has improved to what I think is B class quality and I think it should be reassessed. cheers--Guerillero | My Talk 23:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for nagging you but I want to make sure that you didn't forget about this during your block escapade. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 00:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, that did distract me & I hadn't noticed your reply from the 29th. Now I've got another (unrelated) issue causing headaches. But I will take a look at the straight edge article as soon as I can (possibly tonight) and give it a reassessment. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. If you can't it isn't a huge deal. Your personal problems/projects come first. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Warped Tour Comps

I'm not incorrect. These are both official warped tour compilations. They were released prior to the distribution deal with SideOneDummy. The 1996 comp is not a three track promo, but a full length issued on Vans Records. I can and will complete the article today and would appreciate that you not revert it again. The 1997 release was handled by Epitaph and featured acts that were exclusively on the Warped Tour. It was indeed an official release as evidenced by the fact that it is specifically titled "Vans Warped Tour '97 Presents Punk-O-Rama 2.1". From 1998 forward, all official warped tour comps were handled by SideOneDummy. They've done an awesome job, don't you think? My entries don't warrant being deleted or reverted as they are official releases and part of the ephemera of The Vans Warped tour and they are compilation CDs. It should also be noted that I purchased these CD's first hand from Vans Merchandise at those respective Warped Tours. Joshuah Hounshell (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

-Sorry, I see that you didn't revert anything. I hope the above explanation is satisfactory. It just makes sense to me that these are part of the official series of comps, albeit not from the SideOneDummy series. Perhaps a solution would be to add a column to Warped_Tour#Official_compilation_albums that reflects what label the comp was released on? Joshuah Hounshell (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

-I have completed the 1996 entry at: Vans_Warped_Music_Sampler_1996. I think you will find it satisfactory. I also made mention of the proper labels here: Warped_Tour#Official_compilation_albums. Let me know if you want me to add the column reflecting record label if you would rather I handle that edit. Joshuah Hounshell (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the '96 comp article only listed 3 tracks at the time I viewed it, I assumed it was a 3-track sampler. I see now from the completed track listing that it is something considerably more substantial. I didn't mean to suggest that these weren't "official releases"; that is, I acknowledge that they are actual Warped Tour-themed compilations released by legitimate labels. However, they're not part of the same series as the SideOneDummy series that launched in '98 and became the "official" Warped series, and I felt that distinction needed to be made clear. I like the text that you added before the table at Warped Tour#Official compilation albums, and I think it pretty well clears that up. I don't think a "label" column in the table is necessary, as only the first 2 entries would be different & the 13 would all say SideOneDummy. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so we'll just leave it as is. Thanks for the collaboration. Also, if you are interested, I have begun adding a section under Vans for Vans#Off_The_Wall_CD_Samplers. Joshuah Hounshell (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you as well. Good work on those. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Terminator

It's cool. Happens to all of us. ;) BOVINEBOY2008 13:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem

Hello there. I recently added some wiki links the the above page regarding some of the aspects of the Alien creature (facehugger, queen etc etc). I see you removed these. That's fine but your reasoning may need to be reviewed. When I just checked the page there was no link prior to, say facehugger, to the "Alien (creature in Alien franchise)" page. There are two to the 'Alien_(Alien_franchise)' though. So perhaps one of these (more likely the latter IMHO i.e. "...carrying dead Aliens,..."") needs to have the destination page changed. Have a butchers at the page and see what you think. Cheerio Londonclanger (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the redirect in the plot summary. It now goes: The film begins immediately following the events of ''[[Alien vs. Predator (film)|Alien vs. Predator]]'', aboard a [[Predator (alien)|Predator]] spaceship which is leaving Earth carrying dead [[Alien (creature in Alien franchise)|Alien]]s, living facehuggers, and the body of the Predator that defeated the Alien queen. I didn't feel the links to facehugger, queen, etc. were needed because these are all subsections of the article Alien (creature in Alien franchise), which is already linked. No point in linking to the same article multiple times just for the sake of pointing to subsections. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Schwervon & Anti-folk affiliation

Though the category tag may not be appropriate, statement of affiliation with the genre seems appropriate, given members inclusion on 3 different Anti-folk compilation records (1, 2, Anticomp Folkilation). They've also released a [split album] with Jeffrey Lewis, who is listed as Anti-folk w/references. Reviewing their past shows listing shows also shows numerous tours with Kimya Dawson. Imageisavirus (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It took me a bit to figure out what this was about, since my edit to the Shwervon! article was 10 months ago. My removal of the category was based on the fact that there is no mention "anti-folk" at all anywhere in the article. How can an article be placed in a genre category if the article itself does not mention that genre even once? In order to verifiably describe the band as "anti-folk", you would need a reliable secondary source that specifically places them in that genre. Your argument for genre-by-association ("they were on an anti-folk comp, they did a split and some tours with anti-folk bands") is essentially original research; either there are sources which specifically describe the band as anti-folk, or there aren't. If you want to place the article in that category, I suggest you look for some sources that specifically talk about the band's genre/musical style, and add some sourced content to the article from those sources. If that's done, then placing the article in the category is perfectly logical. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, and clarification of sourcing vs OR. I'm very new, and am still getting a feel for WP style. And yeah, some links to the edit #s would have been a good idea. Cheers. Imageisavirus (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Alien Home World

Hey I was wondering if you could help Edite my page of the Alien Home World before I can publish it please do so soon and respond. GZ411 (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean User:GZ411/Hive world. This does not look like a good topic for a Wikipedia article. Firstly, the topic does not appear to meet the notability guidelines, as it does not appear that this so-called "Alien home world" has received coverage in reliable secondary sources independet of the topic. Secondly, it does not cite any sources to verify its contents (you cannot cite other wikis such as xenopedia or xenowiki as sources for Wikipedia content; see WP:SOURCES and WP:RS). Thirdly, it looks as though it contains original research since it does not cite any sources for its claims. Basically this is a fancruft topic suitable maybe for Wikia or one of these "xeno" wikis, but not for Wikipedia. If it were moved into article space, I or another editor would likely nominate it for deletion very quickly. Please read WP:YFA for advice on writing new articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

J04n(talk page) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thank you, and happy holidays to you as well! --IllaZilla (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael (album)

"common sense says that new studio albums generally don't include unreleased b-sides reaching back 28 years." Bravo. That's probably the smartest thing anyone has written regarding this whole issue on MJ's album. I think you should mention it on the talk page for the article. It might resolve the issue. It also might not but hey, it should be worth a try. --175.140.9.20 (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive user User:Chelo61 is back and has re-instigated the edit war by editing the album as 'studio' again for the FOURTH time, having been blocked 3 times before. Please do something about it.218.186.8.235 (talk) 05:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't do much about it, as I am not an administrator and do not have the power to block him nor to protect the article. I suggest reporting the incident to WP:ANI and ensuring that Chelo6 has been appropriately warned if he is continuing to edit-war. My involvement with the article has been pretty minimal. I'd be happy to pipe up on the talk page but it seems to me that there's already a pretty broad consensus there that it's clearly a compilation album, despite the stubborn insistence of 1 or 2 entrenched editors. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Tis the season....

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. Guerillero | My Talk 02:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! And very happy holidays to you as well! --IllaZilla (talk) 08:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Terminator 2

Hello, IllaZilla. Could you please explain your recent revert at Terminator 2? The text you restored ("Schwarzenegger reprises his role as the Terminator, but while the character was the antagonist of the first film, in Terminator 2 he is a protagonist, defending John and Sarah from the T-1000 and assisting them in their attempt to prevent Judgment Day, a future event in which machines will begin to exterminate humanity") just seems wrong to me. It implies that the Terminators in T1 and T2 are the same being, but they aren't; they're different terminators entirely. I'm tempted to simply revert you in turn, but I thought I should give you a chance to explain first. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I felt a bit uncomfortable reverting your edit and hoped it wouldn't upset you, because I understand where you were coming from. You're correct, the Terminator in T2 is not the same one that was in T1, however it is the same model and character concept. Schwarzenegger is credited in each of the first 3 films simply as "The Terminator", and we have 1 article—Terminator (character)—that covers the Terminators played by him. Your edit said "Schwarzenegger plays a different model Terminator from the one he played in the The Terminator", but that's not true: They're the same model (T-101), but different units. They are the same character concept, in the same way that Kevin Peter Hall played the Predators in both Predator and Predator 2, or Tom Woodruff, Jr. played the Aliens in Alien 3, Alien Resurrection, Alien vs. Predator, and Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem. It's accurate to say that these actors are reprising their roles from film to film, even though they are not playing the literal exact same individual creature over and over again (as the creatures generally die at the end of each film), but they are playing the same character concept, the same role, over and over again. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough then. I still feel that the text you restored is a little misleading, but I take your point, and after hearing your explanation I won't revert back. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Unclean Vocals ICO Josh Farro

You recently changed "unclean vocals" to "Screaming" on Josh Farro's page calling it and I quote "meaningless slang". I am a bit taken aback by that remark, and would like to encourage you to learn more about music terminology before writing off something you may not be familiar with. Unclean vocals are a technical term and "screaming" is actually the slang words. See this page for reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_vocals

Thank you for your contributions and being an active member of the Wikipedia community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.53.3.5 (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I did not change "unclean vocals" to "screaming", I merely removed the word "unclean". Please see the diff of my edit: [1]. The article does not currently and, as far as I can tell, never has said "screaming". "Unclean vocals" is a slang term and redirects to death growl, itself another slang term and a poorly referenced article. I would like to encourage you to check the diffs of edits before making accusations and check the links you are posting to ensure that they actually lead to the articles you intend them to. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The edit I saw appeared as though you changed it to screaming. If that was my mistake, I appologise. However, you too are mistaken because the article indeed says screaming at the present time (due to what I presume is someone else's insistance) and said so when I found it. Unclean vocals is a recognized term for it and what I like many musicians was taught in formal instruction to refer to it as (vice clean vocals, which is more along the lines of traditional singing). I agree with you that the death growl article needs work in of itself and that term may indeed be the slang. However your calling 'unclean' meaningless slang was unjustified and hence why I asked that you read into the subject material before making such corrections.

The terminology is a problem on multiple artists pages. Therefore, I do not intend to pursue this any further at the present time because I think there is a larger project in need of attention in clearing up the death growl article and the definition of that styles of singing's clarification. If you have any expertise in the subject matter, I welcome you to join me in said endeavor.

Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.53.3.4 (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your time as well. I can appreciate your desire to see the correct terminology used. As far as the "screaming", I see that it uses that term in the infobox; I think that may be the source of confusion here. My edit was to the body text, not the infobox. At no time between my edit and the present has the body text said "screaming", although the infobox has. I personally would prefer that it simply said "backing vocals", as that really is his role (backing to Williams' lead vocals). As far as I know he doesn't sing any leads. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleting File Awesome as Fuck

I have permission for the the photo. The source. http://www.greendayauthority.com/faq.php. 6 question under Frequently Asked GDA Questions. You shouldn't delete it. Also http://www.greendayauthority.com/news/2091/ Joseph507357 (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Its not Green Day Authority's to give away. If it is the album cover, the image is owned by Reprise records. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Guerillero is absolutely right. Album covers are copyrighted material, and their use must meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria which includes having a valid fair-use rationale. "The website said I could use it" is not a non-free use rationale. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Review aggregation websites.

I notice in your changes to The Addams Family (film) you used the phrase "review aggregate website". I recently brought this up for discussion at WT:MOSFILM and received a resounding silence, so I could only assume editors such as yourself who frequently comment there were in aggreement.

Incase you missed it I explained that just as we might say "trash collector" or "trash collection agency" we should similarly say either "review aggregator" or "review aggregation website" but that it would be incorrect to say "review aggregate website". You will also notice that the link was is review aggregator.

I think it explains enough to say that Rotten Tomatoes is a website that gives a score based on a number of reviews, but if want to explain further I'd appreciate if you used either "review aggregator" or "review aggregation website". -- Horkana (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I was simply copying the language used in The Terminator, as it sounded like what we were going for. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion of External links section of Black Flag (band)

As for your deletion of the entire External links section and your edit summary "lacking an external links section" is not a bad thing. ELs are not requisite (WP:EL/WP:NOT#LINK). fansites are discouraged, & allmusic should be cited as a source," there is absolutely nothing banning External links sections in any article not does it require that links "should be cited in a source." It only suggests it. As a matter of fact WP:EL states under the WHAT SHOULD BE LINKED section:

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

Please stop removing this entire section. --Oakshade (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

In regards to your claim that "fansites are discouraged", WP:NOT#LINK states:

"There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines." (emphasis mine)

Again, please stop removing this section.--Oakshade (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not required that articles have external links sections. A well-written article shouldn't need one unless, as EL says, there is relevant, reliable material that can't be included in the WP article due to amount of detail or copyright issues. The majority of fansites are notoriously unreliable and full of copyright violations, and it is difficult to determine if one "major fansite" is more appropriate than another (inevitably this leads to an EL section that is a list of fansites). For reliable, informative sites, it is greatly preferred to use them as sources to reference the article rather than slap them on as ELs. For example, the Allmusic biography would be useful as a source for the article content, and could be linked via a citation. Ditto the interviews: If they contain information useful to explaining the band's history, use them as sources & cite them. If they don't, then what's the point of linking them (again, an inevitability as evidenced in many musical artist articles is that the EL section becomes a list of interviews, most of which would be much more effectively applied as sources to verify & enhance the article). One should always consider a link's usefulness as a source first, and try to apply it as such, before slapping it in an external links section. I will copy this reply to the thread you started on the article's talk page, so that other can see my response & comment. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Weezer

Hello, I recently undid your edits to both the Weezer template and Death to False Metal. I honestly don't want to start an edit war on either article, but I feel as if your edits didn't match up with what Rivers Cuomo has stated about the record. It doesn't matter what WE consider the album to be; if the lead singer of the band considers the record to be their ninth studio album, then it is. We have no say in that situation as editors, and constantly editing the article for our own preference isn't going to do anything. I have to admit, I thought it was a compilation album as well for the longest time, until reliable sources [2] [3] proved me wrong otherwise. I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd help prevent an edit war by not continuing to edit the articles in a disruptive fashion. Thank you. WereWolf (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Weezer discography lists it as a compilation album (or did at the time I made my edits, anyway), and it is one by definition: The tracks weren't recorded together with the intention of being released as a single body of work. They were compiled from 20-odd years of outtakes and unused songs from the band's various album sessions. They could put out a live album that Cuomo might consider (and call) their next proper album, but it'd still be a live album. Being a compilation album has entirely to do with how it was put together, not its status in the band's canon, and there's no denying that it was compiled from 20 years' worth of outtakes. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's not entirely true. Just off the top of my head, I can think of two albums that were released as and considered studio albums despite the fact that most of the songs on the albums were recorded live, and both are listed among the studio albums on the artists' corresponding discography pages: Jackson Browne's Running on Empty was almost all recorded live (with a few songs recorded backstage, on the tour bus, or in hotel rooms), yet it's listed on the main album list on Jackson Browne's discography page. Similarly, R.E.M.'s album New Adventures in Hi-Fi was all recorded on tour (most of it live, with a few studio tracks, a few soundcheck recordings, and one song recorded in a dressing room), and yet it's listed on the main albums list on R.E.M.'s discography page. So things aren't always as clear-cut as you might think. DeadpoolRP (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, it has to do with how the tracks were recorded and how they are put together to form a release. You're confusing "studio albums" with "main albums" ("main" and "not main" are essentially a judgment on an album's importance, as opposed to a classification based on how they were created). Whether a release is "studio", "live", or "compilation" is about how it is created, not its importance to the artist's discography/canon (Kiss' Alive albums, for example, are just as important to their canon as their studio releases, in terms of success, but they're still live albums). Some albums' creation process crosses different lines, making their "type" somewhat ambiguous, but that doesn't seem to be the case with Death to False Metal: Cuomo and the sources all state that the album was compiled from unreleased outtakes spanning about a 20 year period of recording sessions. Whether Cuomo considers it as important to Weezer's catalogue as, say, Hurley doesn't have anything to do with how the album itself was put together. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify then: The albums I discussed above are all listed as studio albums on the corresponding discography pages, even though they don't fit your definition of what a studio album is. In addition, Death to False Metal isn't just a compilation album. Yes, the songs were originally recorded over a twenty-year period, but the final versions that appear on the album aren't just the original recordings—Cuomo and Weezer took the original recordings, replaced some of the parts, added some new parts, re-recorded some parts and vocals, added some new vocals and new lyrics, added new guitar solos, etc. They produced a new, unified studio album, and I agree that if Cuomo considers it their ninth studio album, which is what the cited articles seem to say, then it should be considered their ninth studio album. DeadpoolRP (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That argument certainly makes sense, but the Death to False Metal article doesn't say anything at all about replacing/adding parts, re-recordings, etc. It merely says "The album comprises several previously unreleased tracks from throughout Weezer's career" and "the tracks are great songs, great recordings, but for some reason they didn't make the final cut for a record [...] they span a vast period of time from the very beginning of our career in the early '90s right up to the present day." These statements lend to the conclusion that it's a compilation album. Perhaps the confusion could be alleviated by expanding the "Background and recording" section to include referenced commentary on how the album was created, what was re-recorded/added/etc. to show that it's not merely a compilation of unreleased tracks, but something that was heavily worked on in-studio to create an album of "new" recordings. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I'll try to do that, or at least make a note on the talk page that that should be done, in the near future. DeadpoolRP (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked to the album's liner notes for clarification, but unfortunately it didn't help much. It lists the recording studios and studio personnel (recording engineer, mixer, etc.) for each track but doesn't say when they were recorded or if any parts were re-recorded. For the band it just lists their names; it doesn't say exactly what they did on the album (I mean, we know what instruments they usually play, but it doesn't give any info about re-recorded parts, overdubs, or whatever). Perhaps some of that info could be found via Weezer's website or secondary sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the physical CD, but I guess I'm not too surprised to hear there's not much info in the liner notes (though it would be nice). The info I found about the recording process was all online, like in this interview. DeadpoolRP (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Hippos

Hey IllaZilla,
Thanks for keeping tabs on The Hippos page. You reverted my addition of an album picture for the page's picture, saying that promotional picture should be fine. Do you know of a picture that could be used? I'd love to see some kind of media on the page.
Thanks, Badums (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few I found through a Google search (it's tough cuz of course you search "The Hippos" and you get 1,000 pictures of hippopotamuses): [4] [5] [6] [7] --IllaZilla (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey buddy, I think those are all great pics, especially [8]. I also found the photo from their Heads Are Gonna Roll album cover on a LTJ wiki: [9]. Unfortunately, I'm a big purist when it comes to uploading stuff, so I'm never comfortable with just casually deciding that something is fair use and uploading it. Any interest in uploading it to wikimedia commons? For some reason, it's less objectionable to me if someone else does it... - Badums (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, fair use can't go to Commons, but I can certainly upload it here. I'll take a look at it when I get home. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Et Ducit Mundum Per Luce

Hi, could you help me improve the text? I do not agree that this is a "trivial detail that does nothing to exlain the album or its nature". Tom put the song as the first on the album so this might not be accidental. And the error in the name of the title song should mean something. Could you shorten the text so you feel comfortable about it not being a Latin class and I will look for the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohts (talk • contribs) 07:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems:

1. Your text is unsourced
2. The issue amounts to at most a minor grammatical error, or at least a typo. The difference between the title and your "correct sentence" is a single letter.
3. There is no indication from any sources, primary or secondary, that the error has any deep meaning.
4. There is no need to expound on the grammatical rules of Latin in order to state that there is a simple 1-letter error.

As a P.S., you don't need to put your text (in either articles or talk pages) on multiple lines. Simply type normally; Wikipedia will wrap the text when it reaches the right margin. All these unnecessary carriage returns have to be cleaned up, especially if you use them in article text. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Point by point: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohts (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

1. What source would be preferrable? Do you think such source is ok: http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~econrad/lang/lprep.html ? You can checkout "per" which is used only with Accusative conjunction. And here is the link for Accusative form of "lux" (search for lucem): http://www.learnlangs.com/biblelatin/lesson6.htm
2. The difference is one letter, sure, but would it seem ok to you if they spelled London as Londun?
3. Any error has its meaning, for some deep, for some not. Especially when you are pretending to be "leading the world through the light".

So here is my another version of the addition to the "Love" entry:

The title of the first song "Et Ducit Mundum Per Luce" is written in Latin and means "And leads the world through the light". Unfortunately it has a grammar error in it, so the correct phrase would be "Et Ducit Mundum Per Lucem" (plus the above mentioned links to the Latin grammar sources)

--Kohts —Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC).

1. I'm not keen on giving readers a lesson in Latin. Find a source that remarks on the song title and its meaning; that's what I was getting at.
2. I point out the difference being merely 1 letter to reinforce that we do not need an extended Latin lesson to explain the error. Common sense says that an error of a single letter is most likely a typor or a simple grammatical mistake.
3. We cannot assume that the error has any meaning unless there is a reliable source stating that it does. Without such a source, assuming that it has some deep meaning is original research. As I said, common sense says it's nothing more than a typo or simple grammatical mistake.

--IllaZilla (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree with you about typo or simple mistake. But as long as most people nowadays do not understand Latin, this should be pointed out for them, so everyone can make his/her own judgement about the meaning or the absence of the meaning in this typo or simple mistake.

As for the sources you can google "et ducit mundum per luce" and find out on every page that the correct version is "lucem". Do you want a column in the The New York Times as a source? --Kohts

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about a source that remarks on the Angels & Airwaves song title and its significance. I didn't mean "meaning" as in translation. That's what I mean by showing the significance of this factoid rather than simply giving readers a lesson in Latin. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I got you but you are not following me. Here is my question again: what source do you expect for such theme? The New York Times? Britannica? Who's gonna write about that?

The error we are talking about is indeed typo or small grammar error, but people can't understand that because they do not know Latin. --Kohts —Preceding undated comment added 22:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC).

Flys (1970s band)

Hello there, I was wondering if you could point me to any books or old album reviews for this band, Flys (1970s band). I'm looking to expand the article and haven't been able to find anything beyond what is already in there. Thanks in advance, J04n(talk page) 16:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Good Riddance

If you don't mind, I'd like to take another crack at the Bound by Ties of Blood and Affection cover. It still doesn't seem right. I believe it's 200x190, so it's a tad lopsided. I'd like to try to fix that, without going too big. Also, the current image is more grey than white. Just trying to do good for a band I've recently begun to appreciate.Jasper420 01:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, feel free. My main concern with the one you previously uploaded was that it was large & hi-res enough that it could've been used as a replacement for the CD cover. I'd aim for no more than 300px on one side. They were a very good band, weren't they? I only recently came to appreciate them myself, after having a passing interest for years. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks a little odd on the file page, but fine in the article. 300x300Jasper420 04:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Would you update the source link in the Summary with the URL of where you got the new version? Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Done and done. Although it seems a little superfluous, seeing as the cover is basically one image,the same no matter where you get it, like a logo. But whatever. Image sourced.Jasper420 00:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my indents

On the frustrating Terminator conversation. Just wanted to drop a line saying that in case someone brings it up as refactoring someone's talk page stuff. I'm always okay with that on my own behalf as long as it's obvious like that. That said I'm afraid I'm done with that conversation since I feel no more niceties are going to get through any better than they have thus far. I commend your efforts. You are always a class act. Millahnna (talk) 03:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I sometimes get heat for adjusting indents, but there was an edit conflict between your edit and mine & I didn't want it to appear as though the wrong person was being replied to. I'm going to attempt to clean up the offending text, then I'm washing my hands of it. The other editor is at AN3 already & is likely to get blocked for 3RR anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Image from No Devolución

Hello! You recently removed File:Past and Future Ruins.png from the article No Devolución under the grounds that it fails WP:NFCC criteria. I must say that I disagree with this course of action. This image was of a promotional split single that was placed next to a section devoted to this single. Let's say someone came along and created an article for the single. But it was later determined that the single fails the notability guidelines and the result of an AFD was to merge it with a relevant article. The result of this action would be a small section devoted to "Past and Future Ruins" on the No Devolución article that would retain the cover art from the single's article. So my thought process here was in part to display the cover art for this single next to a paragraph that detailed information about the single, and to prevent an inappropriate article for a non-notable release from being created. Also, the article World Painted Blood passed GA evaluation while displaying cover art for its two singles: "World Painted Blood" and "Psychopathy Red." Fezmar9 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFCC #8 says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." There are only 1 or 2 sentences in the article discussing this single, and all they say was that it was released and what song was on it, so an image of it doesn't significantly increase readers' understanding of it. Especially considering that the article is not about the single, but about the album. As for World Painted Blood, I have no doubt that if the article ever goes through an FA review (or if an editor with a keen eye for NFCC comes across it) those images will be removed for the same reason. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Could one not also argue that the cover art for the album does not meet these criteria either? The policy opens up with "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia." The cover art in the infobox hardly helps anyone understand this album, and removing wouldn't hinder that. The cover art is also not discussed anywhere in the body, so its presence isn't supporting any text. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFC explicitly allows for cover art in the context of critical commentary of the item in question (not requiring that the covert art itself be the topic of discussion, but rather the item it represents). Longstanding consensus is that the use of cover art for an item in the infobox of an article about that item is covered by this, since our articles are supposed to contain critical commentary (the definition of "critical commentary" being somewhat vague but generally understood to be encyclopedic coverage sourced to reliable third-party sources). This has been discussed many times at various NFC/NFCC talk pages. Yes, some articles are poor, but we understand that poor articles are works in progress that in time will either be improved or removed, and thus removing cover art from an infobox based solely on article quality is not a good rationale (one should instead attempt to improve the article or nominate it for deletion/redirection).

That said, having non-free cover art outside the infobox, particularly multiple items of such that are not even the covers of the article's main topic (as in the cases named above), requires a bit more in the way of rationale with respect to NFCC #3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." In other words, the album cover in the infobox is OK because the article is about the album and contains a good deal of critical commentary about the album. Justifying also having the covers of the album's singles in the article would likely require either (A) critical commentary about the single covers themselves, or (B) a good deal more critical commentary about the singles. Otherwise, what stops me from going around to every album article & adding all the covers of all the singles? --IllaZilla (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox album

With regards to template talk:infobox album#"Greatest hits" → "Greatest hits album": would you be able to create a stub for video album? It's not a good look to have a red link in the infobox and I'm not too versed with video albums. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I can give it a try, but it might take me a few days. Quite busy IRL right now, mostly just doing watchlist activity this week. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Quotations

Hi, by the way I saw your edit summary on my talk page when I removed your comment on my talk page (on accident), I removed it now since you didn't reply in a few days. Anyways, I was going to say that I probably will need help on condensing the Allmusic reviews I added to those Rancid articles. And I decided to move this to your talk page just because I find it much easier to comment on other people's talk page rather than my own. So if you could help me out that would be great. Thanks! :) --Blaguymonkey (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have to work today but I'll take a look later & see what I can do. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I?

If I'm not allowed to post the fates of the characters in the plotline, then can I do it on the Character section? --SonnyBobSampson (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Aliens (film). Please don't. Note that the section you refer to is called "Cast", not "Characters"...the idea is to focus on the real-world aspects of the film: the actors, how/why they were cast for these roles, and how they played them. It is not "Plot Summary Part 2" where we continue to expound on the actions of the characters in the plot. The plot section adequately and concisesly covers what happens to the individual characters. The individual fates of all the minor characters are not important to the overall flow of events and do not need to be described in detail. It may benefit you to read manual of style for film articles, particularly the sections on Plot and Cast sections. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed gross

Re: your comment[10] on Terminator Salvation, I removed the gross because none of the other Terminator films state their grosses in the lede. I was going for standardization, though I honestly don't care enough one way or another to bother reverting your restoration; my only concern was to end the edit warring over the reception. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What means "sensical"?

Hi, I was browsing The Terminator and noticed the most recent change was flagged '(rv to last sensical version)'. What means "sensical," please? --David F (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The opposite of "nonsensical". Or to put it another way, "sensible", "coherent", or "logical". --IllaZilla (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hive world

Hey I created a page about the Xenomorph homeworld I really want fan to read about the planet is there any way to movie it into your Alien,Predator category? please reply. --GZ411 (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I already explained to you here why I felt this was a bad article topic for Wikipedia. You apparently didn't take any of my suggestions. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Need your help

Hi. An editor called "User:Beyond My Ken" has just popped up on my talk page and told me that all the year in film links I've been removing aren't egg links after all, and has asked me to stop removing them. Could you please comment on this? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Aquabats

Hey IllaZilla,

Thanks for keeping up on The Aquabats page. I don't really know how to go about making edits, as I see what I did was removed. I was the Aquabats original guitarist and was in the band from 1994 to 1995. How do I go about getting credit on the Aquabats page? If you search on google for the Aquabats and my name, Matt Van Gundy, you will find me. I have photos from my days in the band as well. Please advise on what I need to do.

Thanks, Linusvg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

I recommend reading WP:V and WP:RS, for starters. Information like this has to be cited to a reliable source. I know that sounds a bit odd, considering how poorly-referenced the Aquabats article is at present, but as the article only covers the lineups from the first album onward, the info could be sourced to liner notes if necessary. The Aquabats' pre-Return history is not well-documented. A Google search for "Aquabats + Gundy" doesn't turn up anything that meets the criteria of WP:SOURCES, just blogs and other wikis. Since you claim to be the person in question, I should also point to WP:COI just as an FYI (though you haven't had any problems in that respect, I'm just letting you know that such a policy exists). If you've got any magazine articles or anything like that on the band's early history, I'd be happy to look them over and try to cite what I can in the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey IllaZilla,

Thanks for your help with how stuff is done on Wikipedia. I understand that stuff needs to be from a reliable source. I don't know of any internet searchable magazine articles that were written about us during the year or so that I was in that band. The thing that has bothered me for years is that I get no mention on the band page. I am in the liner of our first demo tape - "Revenge of the Midget Punchers." In the liner notes of "Return," I am the first name listed under "this album is dedicated to:" since I wrote the songs for about half of the album, and left the country passing the torch on to "Chainsaw." I appear in the "Serious Awesomeness" DVD in a couple scenes showing the bands history, one of the scenes is a party at my house. I still keep in touch with the guys. I even spoke to Christian yesterday and told him that I was bummed that I don't appear on the wikipedia page. I could give you his e-mail, cell phone, send you a scanned copy of the "Midget Punchers" tape were I am listed as a member, send you some photos of me playing. But, I don't know if those are reliable sources according to Wikipedia. I just want my kids to be able to look it up one day and see me listed as I should be. Anything you can do to help me out?

Thanks, Linusvg (talk) (Linusvg (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC))

Article deletion

Hi, I'm sorry for bugging you, but a friend of mine got into my account without my permission (I know account sharing is prohibited, I tried to keep him off of my account) and was messing around and made a page for an idea of mine for something that does not exist yet. He meant to hit show preview but accidentally hit save page. That was the only thing he did on this account. So do you know how to I could delete it (I don't really want anyone to see it)? If you know how I could have it deleted without anyone seeing it thatwold be great. Thanks. :) --Blaguymonkey (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was deleted. :) --Blaguymonkey (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Weyland-Yutani

I am trying to get Weyland-Yutani properly listed, as it plays a major role as the corporate villain of the piece in the Alien franchise. f you can do that, do so. Thanks! kencf0618 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Since there is no article on Weyland-Yutani (there used to be, but after an AfD it now redirects to the franchise article), it really can't be categorized. Instead it might be appropriate to place it in a list such as List of fictional companies or something, as "Weyland-Yutani, the central corporation in the Alien franchise." Categories are for articles, and there is no article on W-Y. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Predators

I'm just curious, why do you keep editing it out when I edit the Predators page to provide more detail on a character? It seems like it's not really damaging the article, just providing a bit more information and detail. Nikolaevich (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Your speculations as to Stanz's motivations are just that, speculation. There's no indication that he's performing some act of nobility to "buy the others time to escape". He just jumps on the thing and starts stabbing it. He could just be, you know, trying to kill it before it kills them all, which is sort of the entire plot. Please see WP:NOR. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, he did yell "Run!" while he was stabbing the thing, so I assumed what he did was in order to allow them to, well, run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolaevich (talk • contribs) 04:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

They're all yelling "run". There are giant, invisible aliens with blades and energy weapons trying to kill them. What's going through his head in the ~10 seconds it takes for him to stab the thing, then get killed isn't really important to the flow of events. What's important is that he dies. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

21st Century Breakdown

Hi - my name is Addihockey10. I am looking for ways to help out in improving 21st Century Breakdown to a featured article. Since you are the main contributor to the article - how do you figure I could lend a hand? Thanks :) --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 00:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well? --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 03:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

That was a classic case of implying others do not have good faith, mate. Not only did your !vote refer to me in the third person, but you didn't see the Google hits I so generously posted as to demonstrate the links I have had to plow through meself to find anything other than lyrics databases. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I call's 'em like I sees 'em. The first 3 places I checked (Allmusic, Billboard, & Google news) all returned decent results, & 2 editors before me had found stories in NME, New York Daily News, & 3 features in Alternative Press. Got a few results here too. Of course a generic Google search is gonna return a bazillion crappy lyrics sites/messageboards/other assorted garbage, which is why a generic Google search is usually worthless, especially for musical artists. If you're gonna AfD a music topic, you should try searching the most notable music sites first: Rolling Stone, Billboard, Spin, Allmusic, NME, etc. I didn't see any indication in your nomination that you'd tried those major music sources (or even Google News). --IllaZilla (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, the first thing I did was check their discography, where (as noted in my !vote) I saw 2 albums that made the Billboard 200 and 5 singles that went #1 on the US Dance chart. That alone was a big flashing indicator that they probably pass WP:NBAND and that I'd likely find adequate source coverage if I looked in the right places. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. the reason I referred to you in the third person (as "the nom") is because of your confusing username and the fact that your signature does match your actual username. It was just easier to refer to you as "the nominator". --IllaZilla (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Straight edge

Hey IllaZilla, I just ordered Wood (2006) so I am close to finishing off sourcing this beast. The only think I can't think of that is standing in its way is the prose. Do you know any good copyeditors? cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 07:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You can try Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you --Guerillero | My Talk 04:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Boat that Rocked

You are being overly-protective of the article for the film The Boat that Rocked by immediately reverting all of my good faith edits. You do not own the article. Your revert of my last edit here to prevent my correction of a run-on sentence is completely wrong and misguided. Please explain yourself. Mice never shop (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I explained it in my edit summary: It was not a run-on sentence, and breaking paragraphs after 2 sentences is poor structure. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mice never shop (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection: The Best of Unwritten Law

The article 20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection: The Best of Unwritten Law has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-charting album, no sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:IllaZilla acting as though he is the owner of The Boat That Rocked. Thank you.  Frank  |  talk  02:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Awesome as Fuck

Hi there! I don't think "F**k" used there is an expurgation. "F**k" used by Green Day is more likely a styzilation, rather than an expurgation, as we can see "F**k" is used everywhere, including Green Day's official website and their Youtube channel. They intend to use "F**k" to stylize the word Fuck, not censoring it. -- Andyso^{(talk page)} 08:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Stylized means "represented or designed according to a style or stylistic pattern rather than according to nature or tradition", while bowdlerizing means "expurgating (as a book) by omitting or modifying parts considered vulgar" (expurgating meaning "expunging objectionable parts from before publication or presentation"). Clearly "F**k" is an expurgation of "fuck", not a stylization of it. A stylization would be something like "fUCk" or "ƒu¢₭". "Bleeping out" key letters of swear words by replacing them with asterisks or dashes is the classic example of bowdlerization/expurgation. It doesn't matter if it's the band doing it intentionally or someone else is doing it after the fact. They are in effect "censoring" themselves. This has been done numerous times over the years by artists and record labels for album and song titles printed on covers/sleeves. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The question is, do the purpose of using "F**k" is for censoring? Or the album title is just Awesome As F**k while the F**k is pronounced as Fuck? -- Andyso^{(talk page)} 15:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's stick to common sense, please. Clearly it's pronounced "fuck", not "f-bleep-bleep-k", but they can't exactly print "FUCK" in big letters on the cover if they plan to sell the thing in huge retail chains across the country, as that's a naughty word. So they bowdlerize the title to make it less offensive for commercial purposes. They're hardly the first band to do this...censoring (be it self-censoring or not) an album's title or artwork to make it more palatable for retail has been done hundreds, if not thousands, of times. They're not altering the style of the lettering to give it some sort of unique design twist (like, say, Se7en), they're censoring out two of the letters so as not to display a swear word in full on the cover. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

21st Century Breakdown

Hi, IllaZilla. Do you have the ISBN number of the Rolling Stone magazine's piece of news used as reference in the article? I'm translating it into Spanish. If you have it, please answe me here. Regards, Miss Manzana (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi, sorry for always coming to you for questions (you're pretty much the only person I know on Wikipedia), but I was just curious—wasn't my edit on the punk rock article valid (or at least some of it)? Just wondering because the user DCGeist keeps reverting it, stating it was "unnecessary" and "outright poor-quality". I told him that my edit was valid, but he keeps revering it. And it's not just that edit I made he reverted, he reverted every single edit I made on that article. What should I do? --Blaguymonkey (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. Punk rock is a featured article, which means it's gone through several peer reviews & lots of work & been recognized as one of Wikipedia's finest articles. At high-quality articles like those you'll often find at least a couple of editors who monitor it and try to keep it at that level of quality, and sometimes it can feel like they're shutting you out. Part of the FA review process is that the article must have "brilliant prose", and it's usually been copyedited by someone with lots of experience in that area, so even if your edits are just changes to wording you might find them being reverted by someone who thinks the previous wording was more "brilliant". I haven't really edited that article, so I don't know who the usual contributors to it are, but let me take a look at the diff of the revert:

OK, I redid a couple of your changes: I fixed a redirect to "thrash metal" and changed "Pistols" to "Sex Pistols" throughout the article. I agree with some of your other wording changes, too, like changing "superfast"...that's not even a real word. I'll wait & see how my edits are received & proceed from there. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me. I did assume that probably some of the changes I made were not really necessary, but I know that they weren't vandalism, so they didn't really need to be reverted. But I also know that I fixed things that needed to be fixed, like band names should not be abbreviated, and the term "superfast" isn't a real word (as you said), so that term should not be in an encyclopedia. So, thanks once again for helping me. :) --Blaguymonkey (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Terminator Salvation

You would find that the wikilinks I replaced, which you reverted, are in fact redirects to the subsections I have replaced them with. AshLin (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not revert you. I removed the internal links altogether because we already link to the Skynet (Terminator) article in the same section, therefore also linking to various subsections of that article is redundant. Have a look at the diff next time. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, my misunderstanding about the revert. Though I'm not sure removing the linking was a preferable solution. The article was retaining the redirects which pointed to the same very article, i.e. Skynet (Terminator). Since the redirects appeared as green links (I have a script running in my monospace), I redirected them appropriately not just to the article but to the appropriate sections. This you feel is incorrect as the main article already links Skynet (Terminator). While I agree that the main article is already linked beforehand, imho a person who looks for more on cyberdyne systems could be directed more accurately to the concerned (in this case) section. The reader would probably not be aware that the Skynet (Terminator) article would be the place to look to find material on Cyberdyne systems or the resistance. What's your take on this interpretation? AshLin (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Bigwig

First of all, have you heard them? Quite good, similar to Good Riddance. Secondly, I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking on the task of working on the (as of now) non-existant album pages. I would myself, but my experience is mostly with images, not finding and using information. Allmusic should have the basic information. Thanks in advance if you decide to undertake this!Jasper420 05:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have heard them. I don't have any of their albums, but they were on a lot of compilations that I have (fav tracks are "Smile" & their cover of Jawbreaker's "Ashtray Monument"). I could probably make some stub or start-class album articles pretty easily by looking at allmusic, but they'd be little more than infoboxes & tracklistings. I'll give it a shot later on. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry for the lack of reliable sources in Policy of 3. Anyway, I think you should be interested about the creation of the post-hardcore category, which I requested, however, I wasn't able to create a specific one for post-hardcore albums (Category:Post-hardcore albums), which I think should be created considering how we have categories such as Post-punk albums and stuff. So I was wondering if it would be possible in any way for you to help me with the creation of this category (which would have the above mentioned post-hardcore and the Category:Punk rock albums cats as parents). Perhaps I should request it in the Articles for creation section, but I think that you have some knowledge about the matter and it would be easier this way. If it's not possible, I apologize for any inconvenience. If it is possible, I'll get my hands on populating the category as soon as possible. Thanks anyway. --186.82.60.241 (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like both categories have been created. Creating genre categories usually isn't controversial, it's populating them that can get tricky (as of course everyone has a different opinion about what genres their favorite artists/albums belong to). That's where sources become so important, and making sure that the articles' text reflects the sources accurately. Anyway, looks like those categories were taken care of. Feel free to ask me if you need similar assistance in the future. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Prometheus

This says filming "reportedly" started in Canada. Do you think it's time yet to have a film article? BTW, Prometheus (film project) may need to be history-merged to Prometheus (film). Erik (talk | contribs) 23:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should keep in in Alien (franchise) for now, then split it when we've got a decent-enough amount of content (per WP:SS). At this point there's still a lot of uncertainty involved, particularly as to whether this thing is an Alien film or not. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed the news, and it looks like it "begins shooting in the spring", according to this. Not quite yet! Erik (talk | contribs) 15:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding a merge you proposed.

Discussion is still underway at Talk:Aliens (film) about a merger you proposed in 2008. Your comments are welcomed.Cliff (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah?

Well last time I checked X came before play in X-Play, who REVIEWS video games, therefore Xbox clearly comes before Play-station in the consolbet. Nex Carnifex (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked, P came before X in the English alphabet. I don't give a darn about the name of some program, or your so-called "consolbet". --IllaZilla (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My edits to Punk rock

Hi, sorry for bugging you again, I hope I am not being annoying, I started a new section because my computer would not let me reply in the section I already started (for some reason), anyways, regarding my edits to Punk rock—I fixed some other stuff on the article and now I am getting personally attacked on the talk page by DocKino—what exactly should I do? I did reply and say something on the talk page for punk rock and his talk page, anything else I should do or anything I should not have done? I am just asking you because I want to stop this the best way possible. And by the way, thanks for trying to help me with everything on Wikipedia, I really do appreciate it. :) --Blaguymonkey (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring 2011! Mifter (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn 2011!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to there talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks, and a very happy spring to you as well! --IllaZilla (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

So I was wondering...

I saw this (not that I'm the user) and I was thinking, don't the same rules applied for punk rock/protopunk sort of apply in this? (aka genre name wasn't coined until years, but it has become commonplace nowadays to consider the bands put under it as influencing the genre). I mean... idk I guess I'm about to cross the line into original research, so maybe I should ask a more reasonable question, shouldn't the link between what has been called emo (or at least the Washington D.C. mid-80 bands) and what has been called post-hardcore be mentioned in the article? Rites of Spring tend to be put as "pioneers" of such genre too (source, of course, albeit, as I suppose you know, bands appearing around chicago such as big black tend to be called as the first "post-hardcore" acts) as well as Embrace (whose album is listed in the top post-hardcore albums with end on end), as well as seeing how allmusic tends to also consider some of those bands (beefeater, soulside, etc.) as post-hardcore.

The point of the question was, well, I've been revamping the post-hardcore article (so far, to the point of the 80s and the start of the 90s), and I'd also like to know your opinion of what's been written so far (and the sources being used), as well as hearing what's your stance on the above question. Hope it's not a big deal. Greetings --190.159.187.70 (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC) PS: I'm the same guy of the post-hardcore cats above

defaultsort

Hi. I am not gonna to fight this further. You can revert it if you want. Just read the link you provided me more closely. It reads that "By convention, the first letter of each word in a sort key is capitalized, and other letters are lower case." I know it's a tiny detail for this page with the long name but anyway. It was not my intention to edit war. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

So you're telling me that any article that has a word in its title that begins with lower-case (eg. List of Family Guy episodes, Buildings and architecture of Bristol, Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event) must have a sortkey that makes all the words begin with capitals (List Of Family Guy Episodes, Buildings And Architecure Of Bristol, Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction Event) in order for the article to be sorted properly? That doesn't make any sense.

I believe that rule you're quoting only applies if a sortkey is necessary in the first place (such as sorting by last name or ignoring articles such as "The" or "A"), which isn't the case for At the Drive-In discography. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Italics

I've just fixed the links between the two halves of last year's Rfc and scanned through it for the first time. It seems to have been the usual disorganized affair with one person piling in after another, trying to change the direction of the debate, initiate options etc.

If you are still interested in pursuing this, I'd recommend we use the 'View from User:Joe Bloggs' process (e.g. here). That way we would be more likely to get a good result and also (given good preparation) not have to spend so much time on it. We'd just prepare a short introduction and the first (joint?separate?) 'View/s' and then leave it to other people to contribute. Is this in line with what you've been thinking? --Kleinzach 08:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess the silent majority is determined to stay silent. I'm not going to pursue this. --Kleinzach 06:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I tabled this then neglected it. I think the structure of that discussion is what we're aiming for. If you're still interested and care to start it up, I'd be happy to contribute to it. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll email you. --Kleinzach 09:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:The Hippos

Category:The Hippos, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, would appreciate any help/advice dealing with discussion on infobox info in an article on a musician

Hello, IllaZilla. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Verapar (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The categories thing...

Hi.

I wouldn`t like you to feel antagonized, for a moment there it feel like 3-on-1, I honestly understand your point, but guidelines are guidelines, i just wanted to make a point, i didn`t intended to be hostile on any way. For what is worth..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zidane tribal (talk • contribs) 02:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Zidane tribal has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Hollywood Potato Chip

Hi there, apologies for making changes to the Hollywood Potato Chip page, I hadn't checked the history in advance and so hadn't noticed that you OWN this page. Just FYI, I use the WP:CT template for all of the references that I add, where you will clearly see that they do indeed include line breaks between the parms. Of course, I know that you don't need to use them, but I happen to like the official Wiki standard and so therefore, I follow it. For you to revert my edits twice because you don't agree with the WP:CT style is an act of ownership. I will try to avoid editing pages that you appear to own in future. Robman94 (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Chill out, please. I certainly don't own the page (I never claimed to), but I have contributed to it significantly in the past and it is on my watchlist. Template documentations (like what you see at WP:CT) typically place each parameter on separate lines in order to facilitate reader understanding of how to use the templates. However, the presence or lack of line breaks has no effect on the template itself when it is employed, and there is no "official wiki standard" for using or not using them. However,the widespread precedent is not to use line breaks in citations: I used to use line breaks in citation templates myself, in the same way that you're using them, but several years back there was a bot (or automated editor helper like AWB, I forget which) that went around removing them on a wide scale, because having so many line breaks in so many citations clutters up the edit window. My removal of the line breaks in your edit was simply a matter of style, to avoid stretching the edit window unnecessarily and to match the style used throughout the rest of the article. If I hadn't done it manually, a bot likely would've come around and done it eventually. As you can see from the article history, this is the only edit of yours I reverted (my other edit was a re-wording, as explained in my edit summary). I'll thank you to be more civil in the future and not accuse me of WP:OWN over a single style edit. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Hey IllaZilla. The article is looking great. If you want any journal articles let me know. I have Ebscohost and Jstor access till the end of the month and maybe a bit longer and am willing to track down a source or two for you. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 02:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That'd be fantastic. I'm kind of a lapsed grad student (sort of gave up on my masters thesis a couple years ago) but it's possible I may still have access to those as well...It's been a long time since I tried using them. Spray Paint the Walls is proving a fantastic source on the early history of the band, the stuff that Our Band Could Be Your Life sort of skims over. In fact I've read much further ahead in it than I've been able to write, as real-life demands have demanded most of my time of late (spring is very hectic for me work-wise). Anyway, any articles you'd be willing/able to provide would be greatly appreciated. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. saw this...what's EOP? I don't have a book that matches that abbreviation, but if it covers the Flag I'd like to track it down. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Its the Encyclopedia of Punk. Its a nice for those small facts that need a ciataion. --Guerillero | My Talk 12:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool! It's possible I may still have university library access. If so I'll try to get my hands on it. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Me First and the Gimme Gimmes discography

Thanks for the heads up, I guess this is down to your definition, and apart from Wikipedia I have found no source that refers to the album as compilation, but I guess you need to apply one logic for all. I am however not sure on the releases question. Especially for collectors a complete list will be of interest. I regularly find myself wanting, and whilst I acknowledge that it is a bigger task, it is worthwhile doing. The revert has also removed the LP format form the VA albums on FAT. You ought to consider whether as part of the PunkRock project you also want to include colour vinyl info... --capt. —Preceding undated comment added 10:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC).

Have Another Ball is a bit of a strange animal. On the one hand, the songs were all recorded in the same set of studio sessions that produced Have a Ball. On the other hand, they were left off of that album and 10 of the 12 tracks were included on other releases (as A- and B-sides of singles, on various artists compilations, etc.) over the following decade. Then, 11 years after the fact, the tracks were compiled and released together as a single album. It'd be misleading to call it their "sixth studio album", as the songs on it were recorded a decade prior to Love Their Country and had almost all been previously released. It much more fits the description of a compilation album. Allmusic calls it a "companion piece" to Have a Ball. As for the "other appearances", as I said the point of this is to list tracks that weren't (originally) from the band's own releases. There's not much point to listing every compilation that an artist's already-released tracks have appeared on (for the Gimmes it's not that extensive, but imagine doing that for a popular mainstream artist like Blink-182 or Britney Spears...the list would be so long that it wouldn't have much point). Think of it as a "list of tracks you can't (or couldn't at the time) get anywhere else", not a "list of every appearance of this band's tracks in every place they ever appeared". Much more useful. As for the Fat comps, according to the Fat site only Live Fat, Die Young is available on vinyl, none of the others are, and I don't know if they ever were (I only ever saw/bought them on CD, and I've collected them since the first installment). Color vinyl info doesn't belong in the discography, because color isn't a format; that information would be better suited to the album articles themselves. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense, so be it. As for the vinyl versions, they do exist. The only "CD only" was the first one Fat Music For Fat People FAT520, all others had a black vinyl release, latest one had colour and black. I pretty much own most that FAT released bar 17 colour variations (sad, I know..). I been collecting punk rock vinyl since the mid 80s so never got too hot about CDs... If you have anything specific for your project that you want verified, happy to help.--tom (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have undone your revision deleting the LP reference as this is clearly a dual format release. For reference: http://www.fatwreck.com/record/detail/646 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainreiss (talk • contribs) 16:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Album ratings

Hey there - I noticed that you reverted edits recently on A Comprehensive Guide to Moderne Rebellion regarding the use of the | Reviews parameter in the {{Infobox album}} template. In the future, instead of simply removing the reviews, please use the {{Album ratings}} template. Please see that article for use. Rlholden (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's pointless to use the template when there is only 1 rating to display. The "Reception" section is only 1 sentence long, and the rating is given in that sentence. I know because I wrote the darn thing. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Template:Slicksville Animation

I have removed the prod tag you placed on Template:Slicksville Animation, as per policy templates cannot be prodded. Compliance with policy is the only reason I did this; please do not interpret this as my endorsement for keeping the template. WP:TFD is the only route to go with this one. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wooblz! again?

Chickensdoorknob (talk · contribs)

Started just after the last account was blocked, active in almost the exact same areas. I think it's enough to justify an SPI. I have just gone ahead and asked him on his talk page User talk:Chickensdoorknob#Question. Rehevkor ✉ 10:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

Sorry, I didn't know you had that policy here. I changed my sentence already. Thank you for your advice. --Damián del Valle (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A Perfect Circle discography

Re: [11] Why did you revert? Please see WP:BOLDTITLE, WP:BEGINNING and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking)#General points on linking style.

Linking parts of the bold title reiteration is discouraged. Moreover, repeating the title verbatim is discouraged for descriptive titles such as this one. I am sure that my edit is correct and brings the article in line with the MOS, but I'm open to a MOS-overriding rationale as to why this article should be formatted differently. --87.78.237.122 (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that you mass-undid all my MoS-conforming edits. Not cool. Please present a rationale that outweighs the MoS, or revert yourself on all those articles. --87.78.237.122 (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This is getting more and more ridiculous. I also noticed that you undid my 100% non-controversial edits here (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking)) and here (see Wikipedia:Captions#Wording). You obviously didn't even look at the edit you were reverting, you just undid them all, despite the fact that all of them are suggested and supported by the Manual of Style. This is so disheartening. I am making an effort to inform myself on the MoS and then perform my edits.

You didn't even specifiy any reason for your reverts, you obviously don't know not care about the Manual of Style and you also obviously didn't even pay attention to the edits you were undoing. Wow. Just wow.

You see, when I am wrong and an overriding reasoning or applicable P&G I didn't yet know is pointed out to me, I am man enough to acknowledge it, and revert myself appropriately, and take care to not let it happen again if only because I don't like looking like a fool. --87.79.228.163 (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I will not be reverting myself, and your edits were not uncontroversial. MOS:BOLDTITLE says that the article's subject should be stated as early as possible in the main sentence and put in boldface. Discography articles should begin "the discography of <artist> consists of..." (I agree that terms in the boldface title reiteration should not be linked, but if you find them linked, you should simply unlink them or restructure the sentence. You will see that's exactly what I did in several of the cases, for example here). I don't see any reason for your mass removal of boldface from the lead sentences, however; that's what I was reverting. I'm sorry if there were a few unrelated edits that got reverted as collateral damage, but there were dozens of edits to go through. You were going around making mass changes to the lead sentences of featured articles (removing the boldface), without discussing it first and against project-wide convention and the MoS. I'm not going to apologize for undoing those changes. I'm happy to go back through and restructure the lead sentences as I began doing after my reverts, but the boldface will remain. I ask that you discuss the issue first at places like WT:LEAD, WT:WPMU, or WT:DISCOGS before making mass changes to featured articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Discography articles should begin "the discography of <artist> consists of..." -- I didn't find that in the MoS, could you link me to where it actually says that?

I don't see any reason for your mass removal of boldface from the lead sentences -- Reason #1 is that for these class of daughter articles, it makes no sense to awkwardly cram the page title into the lead sentence, much less to bold it. Reason #2 is that the correct formatting without boldface is already used on the vast majority of featured Discography lists. There you go, two perfectly valid reasons.

there were dozens of edits to go through -- Nope. You erroneously thought that there were dozens of edits to go through. In fact, there was nothing to "correct" about my edits.

I'm not going to apologize for undoing those changes. -- I didn't expect you to. Why would you apologise for undoing another editor's perfectly valid edits by the dozen?

without discussing it first and against project-wide convention and the MoS -- Obviously counterfactual. Please do actually look through all of the featured Discography lists and learn how wrong you are. The Manual of Style is perfectly clear on this issue as well, and it's firmly on "my" side.

but the boldface will remain -- No, it won't. You'll see. --87.79.228.163 (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, trying to create a fait accompli is really bad style, probably representative of your general character. Just changing a (proposed) guideline simply because you cannot wrap your head around the underlying reasoning bears evidence to appaling intellectual dishonesty. This does not need to be discussed, because it is already in the MoS, at MOS:BOLDTITLE. You just don't like it, but you're going to have to live with it: the MoS advises against awkwardly repeating the page title in the prose, and against "bolding something, anything" (as editor's such as yourself appear to be doing) because it makes no sense to do so. --87.79.228.163 (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Respect WP:BRD. Next stop AN, I am tired of incompetent people like you wasting my time and retarding the project. You have been advised that (and given sufficient explanation of inhowfar exactly) you are incorrect in your edits (to the articles as well as to the proposed guideline page). Now heed that advice and take your easily refutable (and already thoroughly refuted) objections to the talk page of the proposed guideline. --87.79.224.20 (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I will not respond to threats. I've respected BRD (you were bold, I reverted, now we're discussing). Unless you can identify an area where I have overstepped this cycle, or broken 3RR, then you have no grounds to threaten me with AN and I take it as bad faith for you to do so. I cannot find support for your undiscussed mass changes in the MoS. Many of our Featured discographies begin as I described, and did so at the time they were promoted to FL, so clearly this is an accepted standard and you did not attempt to discuss it at all before changing it on 20+ featured articles. This is not "bolding everything", this is bolding the subject in the lead sentence, which is done in nearly every WP article per the MoS. The MoS is not "firmly on your side" on this: these are not complex titles and parsing them into the lead sentence in a way that can be bolded simply like most other WP articles is not difficult or awkward in the slightest. I was not attempting to create a fait accompli: I searched for a guideline and did not find that the one at the discogs project jibed with the MoS or had any consensus. A guideline thrown up without discussion has no consensus as a guideline. I have started a discussion at WT:LEAD#BOLDTITLE, and am happy to continue the conversation there. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I will not respond to threats. -- What threats? That I'd take the matter to AN if you refuse to amend your unacceptable behavior? That's a fair warning, like my edit summary correctly states. Also, you're hardly responding at all, at least to any of the valid points I'm making.

I've respected BRD -- In the comment above where I mentioned BRD, I was discussing your edits to the proposed guideline, and specifically the way you did not, in fact, respect BRD when you re-reverted here.
Many of our Featured discographies begin as I described -- Funny then that the majority of FL discographies does not, in fact, contain a bolded repetition of the page title in their lead sentences -- a fact which you have conveniently overlooked before.
I cannot find support for your undiscussed mass changes in the MoS. -- The relevant part of the Manual of Style is MOS:BOLDTITLE. These are generically named daughter-articles and their page titles should not be repeated verbatim, let alone be bolded.
I was not attempting to create a fait accompli: I searched for a guideline and did not find that the one at the discogs project jibed with the MoS or had any consensus. A guideline thrown up without discussion has no consensus as a guideline. -- Apparently, other people disagree with you. Why else would someone have included the bit you removed from the proposed guideline? --87.78.53.78 (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Next stop AN, I am tired of incompetent people like you wasting my time and retarding the project. — That is both a threat and an insult, and I will not be goaded by either.

Also, you're hardly responding at all, at least to any of the valid points I'm making. — I responded directly to several of your points in my last reply. How valid they are is your opinion.

Funny then that the majority of FL discographies does not, in fact, contain a bolded repetition of the page title in their lead sentences — You un-bolded over 20. If bolded subjects in the lead sentence were egregious affronts to the MoS, as you seem to think they are, then it surprises me that this many of our exemplar articles became FLs with bolded subjects in their leads.

These are generically named daughter-articles and their page titles should not be repeated verbatim, let alone be bolded. — I don't see what their being "generically named" or "daughter articles" has to do with it, nor do I see any reason why their titles cannot or should not be repeated in the lead sentence. Almost every FL discography I have seen begins "The discography of <artist> consists of...". Do you consider this verbatim repetition of the article title? I don't see what the problem is, especially when so many of our exemplar articles begin this way.

Why else would someone have included the bit you removed from the proposed guideline? — As you are aware, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. One does not need any consensus, or even discussion, to write a proposed guideline. That's precisely why it's a proposed guideline. The majority of WP:DISCOGSTYLE was written by 3 or 4 editors, and perusing the talk page and its archives I don't find a consensus on the issue. That's why it is merely a proposed guideline, not a set of rules.

As I said earlier, I've raised the issue at the MoS talk page and am happy to continue discussing it there. We clearly have opposite opinions on the central issue here and are not going to get anywhere spinning our wheels on my user talk page, where no one else is privvy to the discussion. I'm happy to continue the discussion at the MoS talk page, where others are more likely to participate. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've posted there. --87.79.213.122 (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

All change

I agree with redirecting ALL and all to all (disambiguation). But now we don't need a separate disambig. Can I take it that you will approve my moving all (disambiguation) to all? Or would you prefer me to move it to ALL? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I'm getting a bit confused with all these "all"s :) I think it's best if both "All" and "ALL" redirect to All (disambiguation). Or are you saying we don't need the "(disambiguation)" and the dab page should just be at "All", since there's no primary topic? --IllaZilla (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes that is what I am saying but I was asking whether you think the dab sould be at all or ALL. That is all I want to know. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well then I think it should be at All. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your decisive application of the general notability guideline, both in saving notable articles by adding sources and in removing non-notable articles by demonstrating the lack of possible sources, I award you this barnstar. You are an editor par excellence. Neelix (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Great work merging those VB episode articles! --IllaZilla (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply

I have replied to your post on my talk page. Thanks, --3family6 (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutral notification

Hi IllaZilla!

As Rocca (Colombian rapper) is nominated for deletion (this time, not speedy), I have notified Wikiproject Musicians again (as the article's discussion states that it's within the scope of WikiProject Musicians). I hope this time I've done it in a neutral way, I'm just telling you so you can notice I learnt about the policy. Here is my contribution. Hope you have a good day. --Damián del Valle (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your notice. Perfectly neutral and an appropriate way to get the word out about the AfD. Good work. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing talk page information

It is not your right to remove talk page information simply because you dislike the style of the copy paste of the entire rule/policy. It is bad faith editing--Amadscientist (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not bad faith. Your transposition of entire pages of text and huge blocks of templates make the discussion illegible and impossible to follow. It is bad form. Please just link to the relevant policies or templates rather than copying them entirely. Copy-pasting huge walls of policy text is not the way to have a discussion. I can honestly not make any sense of your replies when you do that, and I doubt I'm the only one. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And yes, it is in fact my right to do so when your transpositions make the conversation impossible to follow. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Agent 51

Category:Agent 51, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

EP categorization

Consensus first I'm usually a pretty WP:BOLD kind of guy, but this edit undoes part of a much larger scheme of categorizing EPs under Category:Albums. If you want to remove that categorization, you really need to seek consensus on WT:ALBUM first. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There have been a number of discussions in the past at the Albums project where the consensus has been that EPs, though in the scope of the Albums project, are by definition not albums. That's why the term "EP" exists in the first place and why we have the separate categories "Albums by artist" and "EPs by artist". Would you make "Singles by artist" a subcategory of albums? No, because singles aren't albums, and neither are EPs. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Extending an apology

As one of the users who contributed to the discussion on the talk page for Project film MOS the other night, you deserve an apology from me for the statement I retracted. It was uncalled for. I hope to regain the trust of editors, and that can only be done starting from a point of realizing how my words may have effected others.

I am sorry for that.

Mark--Amadscientist (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I could tell things were getting heated, and that's one of the reasons I bowed out of the conversation. I respect your intentions of making sure that we are really staying true to the criteria for fair use. A positive thing that I think came out of the conversation is that I found a good deal of inconsistency in the license tags and fair use rationales among film posters, and I am now working towards creating consistency in that area. I think in the end we will see something positive come of it. Hopefully we can continue to work collaboratively toward the betterment of Wikipedia, despite our differences of opinion in the aforementioned discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Alien

Hey, I just wanted to apologise for my edits to Alien (film) and Alien (franchise), where I delinked some key areas. I now understand the context now, and will be careful in the future. Kiranerys-talk 08:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, no harm done :) --IllaZilla (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Unwritten Law

Majority of sources identify majority of albums as punk rock, not pop punk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk • contribs) 02:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

, and please sign your posts. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Terminator template

Please see Template talk:Terminator before you revert me again. Barsoomian (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

WP Albums in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Albums for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Navio Forge

FYI, I've nominated the Navio Forge article for deletion again. Previous AfD was closed as no consensus. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It was? It was relisted like 3 times and was still 2 to 1, the only keep opinion being the creator. Yeesh. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

21st Century Breakdown

Please stop I wondered why this keeps on coming up in my AWB lists—you're reverting my WP:DASH-related changes. This is a part of the Manual of Style and should only be disregarded with some over-arching reason. I can't imagine what it would be in the case of this particular article (cf. with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Article_body#Personnel as well.) Why would you remove non-breaking spaces in this article? How is the reader better served by having line-breaks between members of bulleted lists? Please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Also See Wikipedia:DATE. Why would you contradict these? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather respond here, as (as the notice at the top of the page indicates) I hate fracturing discussions across multiple talk pages.

Firstly, I hate seeing unnecessary html coding in the edit window. It's confusing for most editors and just a general pain in the ass to have to worry about when editing or creating new articles. It's like when editors use "&ndash" when we have the convenient – character available from the "Wiki markup" menu instead. Editors unfamiliar with html, especially new editors, are simply going to be confused by all that html coding suddenly appearing in every single album article.

Secondly, most of the changes you're making are to Personnel sections which are all the way on the left side of the page...the only way they'd produce a line break is if you shrunk your viewing window down to about 3" width. There's simply no need to insert non-breaking space coding there; It's a solution in search of a problem. The only places I can imagine you'd need to prevent line breaks by inserting a non-breaking space would be in running text (body paragraphs) or in right-justified text, as those are the only places a line break is likely to occur. I don't know why the sudden obsession with DASH, but surely a little common sense in its application is in order?

As for the DATE thing, that was mistaken collateral damage. I hadn't noticed that part of the edit and didn't mean to undo it. My bad. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Formatting But what about persons looking at these pages on mobile devices? Surely it would be useful for them, right? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it. I look at WP articles on my mobile phone all the time and have never noticed a problem where a line break occurred before a dash in a left-justified list. In fact I'm looking at Year Zero (album)#Personnel (which doesn't have non-breaking spaces at present) on my DroidX right now and there are no line breaks occurring before dashes, whether I'm using Wikidroid app, the mobile site, or the plain browser. I just think it's a classic "ain't broke, don't fix/solution in search of problem" scenario. I mean, really, have you ever encountered an unintended line break before a dash in a Personnel section? --IllaZilla (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No I didn't start inserting non-breaking spaces because I saw a problem as much as it was simply a part of the MoS that is routinely ignored and I work on album articles a lot. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

See, I think it's kind of weird of the MoS to require the use of html. It's almost as if we expect every editor who might use a dash to be familiar with the html markup for a non-breaking space. In my experience we tend to avoid using html directly in articles, and typically use Wiki markup or templates instead, since they're easier for editors to use and understand. Since we have the dash in the Wiki markup menu, could we not simply program it to act as if the space before it were non-breaking? I have absolutely no idea how that would be done, but it seems that if (per DASH) we expect spaces before dashes to always be non-breaking, we ought to make that an automatic feature rather than requiring the insertion of bajillions of "&nbsp"s across WP. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree That makes eminent sense--you could bring it up at Bugzilla or MediaWiki or something... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your undoing of items I corrected in various Blink-182 articles.

I am new here, so I will respect your input to the best of my ability. It was stated within the untitled album's wiki article that controversy surrounds the name due to the label listing the album as "Blink-182" or critics referring to it in the same way. That, quite simply, doesn't matter. It has been confirmed by band members multiple times that the album isn't eponymous or self-titled, but is in fact untitled. The members of Blink-182 are the creative force, owners and authority behind their song and album titles. As such, we need to correct any and all inaccuracies regarding the name of their fifth studio album. As briefly mentioned in the existing wiki article, Travis Barker was quoted in an interview before the band's hiatus saying that they 'left the album untitled to represent a new blink-182". That and Mark Hoppus was quoted in an Alternative Press feature, saying "Cut to recent years. We were working on the untitled Blink-182 album and...". Here is a link to the full-page scan of that portion of the interview. Third paragraph down: http://i40.tinypic.com/119mfki.jpg Aside from that, all members of the band have been quoted in various many interviews, written and video, stating that the album is untitled and referring to it as such.

I understand that the relevant associations and the label have it in their catalog titled as "Blink-182", but that's irrelevant. While their label might have (or have had) exclusive rights to press/distribute the album as it exists - they don't hold creative ownership rights of song titles or album titles. That right lies solely within the 'band members' that make up Blink-182.

I do understand where you and others are coming from when mentioning label and association catalogs, I really do. But I also strongly suggest that, out of respect for the creative decisions that Blink-182 have worked so hard to agree upon, the album be referred to in any and all relevant articles as being 'untitled'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoptheradio (talk • contribs) 03:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have read your post at Talk:Blink-182. Please continue the discussion there, so it doesn't get fragmented across multiple pages. I cannot view the image you linked above (it just continuously cycles in my browser but never loads). And no, it really doesn't matter if they originally were going to leave it untitled. When they put it out, they put their name on the cover and that became the title. Numerous reliable and authoritative sources confirm this, including (again) the band's own website, as well as the RIAA who awarded them gold & platinum certifications for an album called Blink-182, not untitled. It is not an "inaccuracy" to call it an eponymously-titled album, nor is this something that needs to be "corrected". It is not, in fact, the band members' prerogative to call it untitled when it bears their name as the title right there on the cover. It's not like Blink-182 are the first act to put out an eponymously-titled record...literally thousands of artists before them have done it. Why you consider this some sort of grand artistic vision that Wikipedia is somehow tarnishing, I can't understand. This is an incredibly common situation in the world of recorded music. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

So by your definition, when a band releases an album, if it's going to be untitled, somehow that means the band name is the name of the album if said band puts their band name on the untitled product? So I suppose if Blink-182 wanted to conform to your definition of what an untitled album is, they'd have to a.) not put an album title and b.) not put their own band's name on the cover? I'm sorry, I fail to see any logic or reason in your comment stating, "When they put it out, they put their name on the cover and that became the title." Perhaps you meant to actually say something different? And again with the "bears their name" on the cover title thing: since when has it become accepted that an album title MUST be the bands name if the bands name is the only text on the cover? Just because they put their name on it doesn't mean it's self-titled. It's simply an untitled album with the bands name on it. Seems to me that you've fabricated some sort of album-title-determination system of your own and expect others to agree with it/follow it like it's law. In any and every single interview or article I (and others) have watched or read, the members refer to the album as being 'untitled' - and that's the only "proof" needed. Nothing - no label, recording association, group, online music store or any other company dictates the album title. They can list it as being self-titled all they want - but the fact is that the album has no title. It has the bands name, obviously, but no title. And of course Blink-182 aren't the first band to release an untitled album with their band name on the cover ;) - when did I ever say that they were? Also - spare me the condescendingly smug nature of the whole "grand artistic vision being tarnished" thing; it has no place here and I will choose to ignore it. Also, while this very type of debate might be commonplace regarding music and untitled/self-titled albums - I stand firm with my previous statements about dictation of titles; the band has the final say of the title, despite what anyone else wants to call it/list it as on any website or plaque.Stoptheradio (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Note regarding the Alternative Press article scan I linked to: I have clicked the link from within Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Internet Explorer and it loads without incident. I recommend that you temporarily use another browser so you can view the image.Stoptheradio (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet another interesting observation that I...observed. Going back to Blink-182's official website blog section, I scoured through all of the articles to see what the album in question was referred to as, historically. You can see for yourself that in practically every single article in the archive, the album is referred to as their 'untitled album'. Remember that this is still coming from their official site - a source you cited as 'proof' against my claims in your post above. It becomes clear that the only reliable and consistent sources of 'proof' are the members of Blink-182 themselves, because at least they are consistent when saying the album title by 'name'.Stoptheradio (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not some system that I have fabricated. This is a common titling scheme that has been in use almost as long as there have been albums. Are you suggesting that The Beatles, Weezer, The Offspring, Metallica, Ramones, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and the countless other so-called "self-titled" albums in existence are in fact untitled? Clearly this is not "some sort of album-title-determination system" of my own fabrication...innumerable reliable sources, including the most longstanding music publications (Rolling Stone, NME, etc.), certification bodies (Billboard, RIAA, etc.), and of course record labels and artists themselves recognize this, and the nearly universal standard is that an album with no title, but bearing the artist's name, is "self-titled" or "eponymously-titled". And no, the band does not have "final say", though we are certainly able to describe their stance and quote their views. When in doubt, Wikipedia relies on "reliable, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and on consensus reached through discussion. This topic has been discussed multiple times, and the consensus has been to refer to the album as Blink-182 as that is what the preponderance of reliable sources—again, including the band's own website, the record label who published the album, and the major certifying organizations in the music industry—refer to it as. I don't see a valid reason to ignore such a preponderance of sources just because of a few more old interviews/blogs where the band members said they weren't going to title the thing. While their reasons for not giving the album a specific title are already explained in the article, Blink-182 is the title that the album was published, certified, awarded, and categorized under. I don't see anything new in your comments that convinces me to discount all of this, or that's likely to change consensus on the matter, though of course you're welcome to continue the discussion at the band or album's talk pages (this is why I asked you to continue the conversation there rather than here...if we continue to discuss it here on my talk page then you and I are the only ones likely to see or take part in the discussion, whereas if the conversation is held on an article talk page then more editors are likely to notice it and join in).

As for the image url, I'm still not seeing it, and I use Chrome on a brand-new 64 bit Windows 7 desktop. No luck, it tries to load the page but times out after several minutes. But I doubt it adds anything new to the discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I will continue my arguments on the band talk page, thank you. Concerning the scanned article image - I don't know what to tell you. It's a magazine interview with Mark Hoppus where he refers to their last album as "untitled". I, too, run Windows 7 x64 and the image loads fine in every major browser. I'll upload the image to my own host and send the link again at the bands talk page.Stoptheradio (talk)! —Preceding undated comment added 06:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

"TV Party" and "Six Pack"

Okay, sorry, I did not know that they were classified as singles the the group itself. I will go and move them back. I always thought they were maxi-singles. Sorry again. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries, like I said they're a bit confusing to classify. I already moved them back :) --IllaZilla (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well I was going to move them back myself, but thanks anyways. :) --Blaguymonkey (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

American Idiot

Hello, I just wanted to say sorry if I was being rude or anything about the quoting thing in my edit summaries on the American Idiot article. :) --Blaguymonkey (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It's alright, it's just that many bracketed alterations is styliztically awful. It's taking first-person quotes and making them third-person...Billie Joe isn't referring to "they", he's referring to "we" (himself & the band). The context of the sentences made that pretty clear. Bracketed alterations are fine for minor fixes of context, but if you're having to make that many alterations it should be a hint that the context was already fine to begin with, or that maybe there's another way to alter the sentence to fix the context without having to hack up the quote so much. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Blink-182 template

Howdy partner. I was wondering why we can't take the template change into a discussion. I have started a discussion on the main blink-182 article, so others can have their say. --124.183.184.21 (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to the topic you started on the template talk page. I ask that stop reverting until a consensus is formed, as my edits addressed a number of organizational and technical problems that your reverts are blindly restoring. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

please read the other thing I have written on the template discussion. --124.183.184.21 (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have placed the template talk page on my watchlist and will continue to respond to comments made there. You do not need to notify me on my talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Blink-182 single "Up All Night" premiere date is still wrong

Someone else brought it up on the Blink-182 talk page, but you needed verifiable information. I provided all of the necessary info on July 17th but got no response. I then created another section on the talk page with the info just in case you might have missed my post, but to no avail. The main Blink-182 article still states that the release date of "Up All Night" was July 15th, 2011, and needs to be corrected. The actual release date was July 14th 2011 at around 5pm pacific.Stoptheradio (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to clear a couple things up

This concerns the situation where I changed the title of the last Blink-182 album on various articles. It was a bad decision for me to edit content without discussion, and I apologize for doing so. I was new and didn't research enough about this community beforehand, and didn't know any better at the time. I was just excited to be able to get in and 'fix' the info. I understand that's no excuse and it's my responsibility to understand how things work here. I want to make you aware that it was not an act of bad faith and I meant no harm whatsoever. I was completely convinced that I was absolutely "in the right" with 'correcting' the album title, and imagined it would be a welcome 'correction'. Though I am still convinced the album itself is untitled, I understand how things work a bit better around here now. I will present my case in the future, with sources. I will welcome debate, community involvement, adhere to the rules, honor the 'chain of command' and not change anything I shouldn't. It was a mistake to go change things without considering the community and, again, I do apologize. I hope to become a valuable member here in time, and mean no harm to this site or its members.

P.S. That "July 15th" date for the Up All Night premiere still needs to be fixed on the main Blink-182 article. It is correct on the separate article for the single itself, though, just so you're aware. I feel as though you've been ignoring my requests for the correction, but hope that's not the case. Thanks! --Stoptheradio (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I realize you were new and perhaps I was a bit terse about it. I and others have dealt with that situation several times in the past, so when it recurs I can sometimes be testy when addressing it. I'm glad that the experience has led you to discover a bit more about the behind-the-scenes workings of Wikipedia, and I look forward to your continued contributions. As for the single date, I'll have a look at it; I've been at the San Diego Comic-Con International all week and thus not on Wikipedia much. Right now I'm operating on about 2 hours' sleep so I'll revisit the issue once I'm better rested. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Related issues

I see you've decided to audit all my edits. I'll be sure to get your approval in future. Sorry. Barsoomian (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have the Alien and Terminator templates on my watchlist, and those are the only edits of yours I've had anything to do with. There's no need to be accusatory about it. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I made the Terminator edits a month ago, 28th June. You reverted it today, immediately after disputing me with me elsewhere. And As for "BRD"? I opened a discussion at the time, which nobody responded to. So I doubt your sincerity. Barsoomian (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edits to the Alien template reminded me of the similar edits you made to the Terminator template, so I revisited it. I had forgotten about it. I have less interest in Terminator than I do in Alien, so when I saw those other editors reverting you on it I figured it was being handled and I stopped paying attention to it. Your similar edits to Alien prompted me to take a look at Terminator again, and I saw that your removal of related articles remained even though no one agreed with your position. I disagreed, so I reverted. I am fully within my rights as an editor to do so. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You are NOT within your rights to declare that "no one agreed with my position". That the edit stood for a month till you decided to check up on me says otherwise. I don't know if anyone agreed with me, but no one cared enough either way to bother to discuss it on the Talk page. Including you, despite your smarmy "BRD". Barsoomian (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Mgiganteus1 and I have both reverted you, now multiple times each, and no one has responded in agreement with your statement on the talk page (I have responded with disagreement). This indicates that no one is in agreement with you. That it stood for a month merely indicates that people stopped paying attention, as is evident now that attention has been drawn back to it. Please discuss this at the template's talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• 2:1. You win. Barsoomian (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, IllaZilla. It's been a year since I started editing and you welcomed me to Wikipedia. I'd like to ask what you think of my user page. I am the imitation you. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Haha wow! I guess I'm flattered. Though I copied my layout off of another editor too, at some point in the past. Happy Wiki-anniversary! --IllaZilla (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Misfits

I'm sorry, I overestimated my knowledge of wikipedia, I'm going to fix everything as soon as possible. The chronologies were a messi: some articles took into consideration the entire discography (including singles). I will unite EP and album as indicated. But are you sure that "from" must be lowercase? It is not mentioned in the regulations. Thanks! CapPixel (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I already fixed them all, I think. All albums and EPs are in a single chain, while singles are in another. Yes, the "from" in Cuts from the Crypt should be lowercase, as it is a preposition (in this case it acts as a modifier to a noun, the noun being "crypt"). --IllaZilla (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Prometheus Facebook Additions

Please leave our additions alone, we have spent 2 weeks seeking permission and have made the requested donation. 20th Century Fox and Facebook are external links to commercial organizations are have been ratified as acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.68.200 (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The content you are adding to the article is an advertisement for your Facebook page, and this is unacceptable. I don't know what "permission" you have been "seeking", but I cannot find any evidence of your having gained "permission" to bypass our core policy WP:NOTADVERTISING. I don't know what "donation" you made, but there are no monetary donations involved in adding content to Wikipedia articles, nor does making a donation mean that you can bypass our policies. You cannot buy advertising space on Wikipedia. Your continual addition of an advertisement for your fan-made Facebook page is an unacceptable use of Wikipedia, and the article will be protected to prevent your continued disruption. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Tom DeLonge

hey, you seem like a big contributor to Blink-182 related pages. Can you make sure people don't change DeLonge's picture? They are keep changing from Blink-182 (Tom DeLonge in 2009) to a AVA picture of DeLonge, still with the Blink-182 2009 image captions. --58.168.73.125 (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have too many other things on my plate right now to get involved. IMO the picture of him with the guitar is slightly better, as it gives a more immediate visual of what he does (plays guitar and sings), but as far as the caption it should be a simple matter of correcting the caption to accurately reflect the photo. Seems like silly grounds for an edit war to me. If there's a dispute over which photo to use, take it to the talk page, but making the caption match the photo is a simple fix. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary reverts

Your policy of just reverting contributions, calling them "unnecessary," is becoming quite tiresome. I put in accurate info for Alien vs. Predator, five different elements, and you reverted all of them. The "characters created by" credit can't be there, even though it's on the film and the poster? The editor can't have his name as it's listed on the film and the poster? David Giler can't have his name as a link? If you really believe an uncredtied writer needs to be in the infobox - that it's not enough to have him in the article - then restore that. Don't revert everything. And stop with this nonsense that the producers need to be listed alphabetically - there is no "interest of neutrality" - they should be listed how they're actually billed. Very few WP film pages alphabetize producers, and in this case it's especially inaccurate as it was John Davis who got this film made and ran the production. Gothicfilm (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Your policy of rearranging/removing details in the infobox, without stating any reason in your edit summary (simply saying "infobox credits"), is becoming quite tiresome. Changes that remove information and don't improve on existing information are unnecessary. The "based on" field was removed 8 months ago, because according to {{Infobox film}} the parameter is for "the title of the source material and the name(s) of the source material writer(s)". Since this film is not a direct adaptation of a preexising work, my feeling was this did not apply, and I explained this in my edit summary. If you disagree, feel free to add it back; this has nothing to do with your recent edits as you did not make any changes related to this field. The infobox is not meant to directly reproduce the film poster nor the credits; it is quite common for persons not to be listed in the same order they are billed, nor is there any requirement that they be listed in billing order. The names were in this order when the article was promoted to FA status and you did not state a reason in your edit summary why you rearranged them, therefore I interpreted the change as unnecessary. If you would care to give a reason in your edit summary (such as "he was the primary producer and the one most directly responsible for producing the film"), perhaps others would know why you were making the change and would not be so quick to revert. There is no reason to remove Salerno from the infobox, as he was verifiably a part of the film and his contributions are discussed in the article. The infobox is a summary of details from the article, not a reproduction of the film's credits. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've done a lot more adding of detail than removing it, and I don't appreciate you calling my efforts tiresome. You didn't answer why you removed the other accurate info. It looks to me like you didn't bother to even look at it. You certainly didn't accurately assess it. When I look at WP pages I would like to assume they reflect the credits - or have a good reason for deviating from them. Like perhaps uncredited writers. But alphabetizing producers in the "interest of neutrality" is not a good reason. Gothicfilm (talk) 08:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't appreciate your calling my edits tiresome either, when we're only talking about a couple of edits to 2 articles. I did not know in which order the producers were credited on the poster; all I saw was you moving names around in a Featured Article, and removing a name, without stating a reason. Had you stated a reason, I probably would have understood why you made the change and not reverted your entire edit. I admit that my revert undid some constructive changes, but it was easier for me to revert than to manually go back and fix the problematic changes (the unexplained producer order change and the unexplained removal of Salerno). Again, had you explained the reason for moving the producers around I probably would have understood and simply reinstated Salerno. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the way you hit the Undo button. That is quite distinct from making a contribution - something I know you understand, so I'm surprised to see you meld them here. I've explained in the past that I was putting names in their proper billing order and you reverted them anyway. Explaining to you isn't as useful as you indicate. I double check all my contributions - they're all accurate. You admit - as I knew to be the case - that you don't even bother to look at the poster. If you're not going to go to the trouble to do something right, than maybe you should leave it alone. And just because an article is Featured doesn't mean it's complete or fully accurate. Gothicfilm (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not have the poster in front of me to look at (the version on WP is small and lo-res, and most versions in a quick google search are not large or hi-res enough to read the fine print credits at the bottom). It makes little difference, since you didn't state in your edit summary that that's what you were doing, so how would I have known to look at the poster anyway? I am not psychic; If you don't state the reason for your change via edit summary, then I cannot be expected to know why you were making it. Featured articles have been peer-reviewed and represent our best work, especially ones that have been featured on the main page, so changes to them generally necessitate some manner of explanation. If I feel an edit has problems—as I did with your edit due to the unexplained shuffling of producers and the unexplained removal of Salerno—then hitting the undo button is my prerogative, and I often exercise it. The onus is not on me to go back and manually fix only the problematic changes, especially when I don't know why those changes were made. The onus is on you to explain why you are making the changes, if you expect others to agree with you. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

IllaZilla, there is a concern that the RfC notifications you have placed on various project pages, concerning Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist#Should_Template:Infobox_musical_artist_include_a_.22spouse.22_field.3F, are not neutrally worded. Could you please edit them so they have a neutral wording? Thank you, --JN466 11:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind indicating which part(s) of the notification are non-neutral? I mention that there has been another request to add "spouse" (as there have been many before), I mention the RfC, I mention that previous discussions on the matter have taken place and are linked via the current discussion, and I invite editors to comment. I think that's pretty neutral. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest the following wording:

There is currently an RfC underway to discuss whether a "spouse" field should be added to Template:Infobox musical artist. Interested editors are invited to voice their opinions at Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Should Template:Infobox musical artist include a "spouse" field?.

Would you be so kind? --JN466 16:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I already went back and removed the "yet", which is the only part I feel could be interpreted as non-neutral. The rest is simple statement of fact. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Neighborhoods tracklisting

So let me get this straight, a confirmed twitter account is less reliable than a source that is a forum? The Alternative Press "source" clearly links to that forum as its source, which the guy has since changed his saying it was correct. Piss-poor or not, that's not the confirmed tracklisting. It may be the tracks but names are subject to change and they are not necessarily in that order. At most, the songs should be listed just as included songs, not THE tracklisting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlylemiii (talk • contribs) 06:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The Alternative Press article, which is the source cited, is not a forum, and neither is the AbsolutePunk source where the information originated (it is a news posting with a comments section, not a forum). If the sources retract or revise themselves, we can always change the article to reflect that. But Wikipedia relies on "reliable, published third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (which Alternative Press is) as its sources of information, not on tweets or other social networking sites. Information about this album has changed almost weekly since it was first announced that they were recording it, and it is inevitable that the information—and hence our coverage of it—will continue to evolve and change as the album's release approaches and its promotional cycle continues. Given the constant flux of information, I am inclined not to remove reliably-sourced content without very good reason, unless and until the sources retracts/revises itself or other sources become available. The standard on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and yes this sometimes means that some details will be incorrect, especially concerning future events. If these details turn out to be incorrect, then they can be corrected as supported by other sources. But as the information is properly cited to a reliable source I am inclined to let it remain at present. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Fright night

Hi IllaZilla, the changes I made to the reception for Fright night (2011) have been reverted. I do not understand. You see I use Rotten tomatoes and when I clicked on top critics it said 100%, not 88%. So i'm confused as to why my changes which would appear to be correct have been reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gothmogxx (talk • contribs) 16:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing 88% among top critics, with an overall score of 74%. I'm not sure how you would have seen 100%, as it was 88% before you changed it and it's 88% now. It's mathematically impossible for it to somehow have been 100% at some point in between (as clearly not all critics gave it a perfect score). What country are you in? It's possible that different countries may see different results on RT (I seem to recall having run into that problem before between the US & UK RT sites). --IllaZilla (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah i'm from the UK. It does say 100% with top critics when I look, and all 7 gave it a positive review. Strange, I guess your right about different countries getting different results — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gothmogxx (talk • contribs) 14:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well in that case I guess the warning I gave you was unwarranted, so don't worry about it. On the US site it says they polled 25 critics for Top Critics, and 99 for all critics. I think the thing to do would be too look at both sites' lists of critics polled and see if they overlap. If so, we should stick to the US numbers as they polled more critics. If not, we may be able to cite both. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Thread at Wikipedia:ANI#Pronunciation. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Pete Reichert

Hi,

You reverted the redirection I made at Pete Reichert. I've now added some explanatory text at talk:Pete Reichert for why that was done. If you know of any sources that establish notability for him independent of the band, I'll happily add them to the article, but otherwise it should be redirected. Please respond at the article's talk page if this needs some further discussion so that other editors interested in Pete Reichert might see it an comment. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I was just opposed to a redirect being done without any explanation given. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Neighborhoods Track List

http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/official_tracklisting_for_blink_182s_neighborhoods_revealed_by_mark_hoppus

This is correct, please revert the changes you made to my update on the Neighborhoods track list. Thank you.Mrkite6270 (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I will not. That news posting is based on a screenshot of an itunes playlist that has absolutely no caption or any text saying that it is the tracklist. Please participate in the discussion at the article's talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Friendly neighborhood ANI notice regarding the BLink 182 album stuff. It's at the Incidents noticeboard. Millahnna (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Reeve Oliver

Please do not remove the listas parameter. Listas and living are required parameters.Bgwhite (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not remove living. Nowhere does WP:NAMESORT say that listas is required, especially considering that in this case THE LISTAS IS NO DIFFERENT FROM THE ARTICLE TITLE. Use some common sense here. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Misfits

Dude, what the heck is your problem? AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, The E Street Band, Fleetwood Mac, Guns N' Roses, KISS, and Nine Inch Nails all have timelines, why the heck shouldn't Misfits? And for the record, I didn't make any of those band's timelines. You can check. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 00:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have had this discussion before at Talk:List of Black Flag band members#Case for including chart and my opinion on these colored charts has not changed since that time. In summation:

1. It is repetitive of already-presented info.
2. There is no guideline or standard requiring or even recommending their inclusion.
3. The format is not ideal for the amount or type of information being presented.
4. There are no guidelines or standards for how they are to be applied or presented.
5. They add little to articles except decorative colors.

WP:OTHERCRAP aside, if you're trying to push for these graphs to become some sort of standard in musician articles, you should bring it up at WT:MUSICIANS. I've never seen a discussion about these graphs on a project or MOS page. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Responding to your numbered points:

1. What is wrong with presenting information in two different ways? I'm a visual person, and seeing a timeline is a visual way for me to see who was in the band, and when.
2. You're right, I plan on bringing that up on WP:MUSICIANS.
3. That is your opinion. Don't try to present it as a fact, because it is clearly an opinion.
4. Again, you're right about that. I also find it annoying that colors are not standardized on timelines. That's why on almost every timeline I make or edit, red is for vocals, green is for lead guitar, orange is for rhythm guitar, purple is for bass guitar, blue is for drums, and yellow is for keyboards (with obvious exceptions for bands that are very large or have people playing non-typical rock instruments, like The E Street Band). A lighter version of the color is used if the musician both plays an instrument and sings at the same time, for example, Adrian Smith both plays guitar and sings backing vocals for Iron Maiden, but Dave Murray and Janick Gears only play guitar. I plan to suggest these color standards when I introduce a timeline argument on WP:MUSICIANS.
5. Again, this is your opinion. On your link you presented your own opinion as if is was pure fact many times. Please stop.

Also, in regards to your argument that timelines don't show who played on a certain album, the timelines I made/edited for L.A. Guns, Survivor, and Third Eye Blind all show album names, and also who played on each album. This is information which previously was not readily available on each article's respective page. I plan to add this information to other timelines as well. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 04:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

1. The table running down the right is a visual representation of the same information. Other than colors, I don't see what the timeline adds that the table does not already present.
2. It's great that you plan to bring it up at WT:MUSICIANS. We really need to establish some guidelines and consistency for these things.
3. Of course it's an opinion. I never claimed it to be fact. As I stated above, "my opinion on these colored charts has not changed". In the linked discussion I gave several arguments for why I hold that opinion, and I feel that those arguments were not well-rebutted, but as far as I recall I never presented my opinion as fact, so please don't be accusatory.
4. It's great that you aim for consistency in the timelines that you create (and that your timelines give the names of the albums), but since there are no set standards or guidelines their use across the project still varies wildly. This is why I encourage discussing these timelines in a centralized place like WT:MUSICIANS, and coming up with some standards/guidelines (and possibly a template for application) before inserting them in dozens of articles and insisting that they ought to be there.
5. Again, I do not recall ever presenting my opinions as "pure fact". I did give arguments and rationales in support of my opinions, as one is expected to do in a debate, but this is not presenting opinions as fact.

--IllaZilla (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you didn't intend on what you were saying to look like you thought it was a fact, but to me, it really did look like you were presenting it that way. My main reason for wanting to include a graphical timeline on articles is because it doesn't take away anything from the article, so even if just a few people prefer looking at a color-coded graphical timeline then a list of names and dates, the article is better. You keep saying that a timeline doesn't add anything that a table doesn't already present, and you're right about that. It just presents the same information in a different way, which some people (yes, including myself) prefer. And in my opinion, even if only a few people prefer it that way, it should still be added.

Also, in response to your accusation that tables are better for presenting information than timelines, I would just like to point three times when timelines are superior:

1. On the List of Deep Purple band members page, the same information is presented in three ways. However, only the timeline shows that Deep Purple has primarily one singer, bassist, drummer, and keyboardist, and primarily two guitarists. It also shows that the majority of the band's studio and live albums are from the band's original eight-year run.
2. On the List of AC/DC members page, only the timeline shows that while Brian Johnson has been the lead singer for much longer than Bon Scott was, Bon Scott recorded almost as many albums with AC/DC. The chart also makes it look like AC/DC has gone through many line-up changes over the years (at a first glance), but the timeline immediately shows that the vast majority of the lineup changes occurred before the release of their first album.
3. If you look at List of Skid Row band members, where the list is presented in table form, you might think that Johnny Solinger has been their primary lead singer, because his name is listed so many times, but if you look at Skid Row (American band)#Band members, where the same information is presented in a timeline (even though it's a terrible-looking timeline), you can clearly see that Skid Row has primarily had two lead singers, Johnny Solinger and Sebastian Bach. It only looks like Johnny Solinger was the primary lead singer based on the chart because there were no line-up changes during Sebastian Bach's tenure. This presents a fundamental problem with charts: each section shows a different amount of time, a problem which is not present in timelines. Yes, if you take time to look at the chart you will still realize that Skid Row has had two primary lead singers, but you can determine the same information almost instantly based on the timeline. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 22:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Blink-182 and DGC

In a recent edit to Blink-182 you removed a reference to DGC records, stating that according to the discography page Blink has not released anything through DGC. On Neighborhoods however, the first sentence contains a reference to the album being released through DGC. It's not sourced, and you obviously know more about Blink than I do and have more time to edit Blink-related articles—wanted to bring this to your attention. —danhash (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I was confused as to why Blinkman44 (talk · contribs) placed DGC in the infobox at Blink-182, since to the best of my knowledge the band has never released anything on DGC (I have all of their albums as well as handful of their minor releases). I took a quick look at Blink-182 discography and did not see DGC listed as a label for any of their releases, so I reverted the edit. I see that Blinkman44 has also added DGC to Neighborhoods (Blink-182 album). I was on the verge of reverting this as unsourced, but I plan on buying the album on my way home from work today and if it does indeed carry the DGC label I didn't want to have inadverently removed correct info. If it does indeed carry the DGC label, I will probably add a citation to the liner notes. (I now notice that Allmusic lists DGC as the label; that's good enough for me.) --IllaZilla (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

colwidth=30em

Hello! You must have a much wider screen than I do to see four columns. At one time there was some sort of policy to use "30em" to let the browser choose the column width, which was explained to me c. 2009 as advantageous for narrow viewers such as smartphones. Apparently this was discussed and changed to basically "use when deemed appropriate", and I didn't know about the change. (Far too many policies to stay on top of.) It does appear on a number of articles, though. cheers - Salamurai (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I was going to ask you about it on your talk page, as I'd never seen it before. I've only ever seen {{Reflist}} used to set a number of columns, not a width. I was seeing 4 columns both at work (standard monitor) and at home (widescreen), and given that there aren't that many refs it just struck me as unnecessary smooshing. I honestly don't know much about smartphone compatibility, so if there are issues with it and it's been discussed somewhere, I'm unaware of it. FWIW I use the Wikidroid app and it doesn't have any problem with the 2-column layout. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Boogadaboogadaboogada!

Look at the alternative cover. It's uploaded to the commons by User:Weasel5527. I find it unlikely that that user is assosiated with the band and is rightfully releasing the cover under Creative Commons, but I thought I'd check first before replacing it.Jasper420 20:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It's almost certainly a false license. I'll mark it as copyvio at commons. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

My edits

Hi, sorry for the edits on Nimrod, Warning and American Idiot. I had seen other articles (such as Insomniac and some Metallica articles) that credit managment people and guitar/drum techs. So sorry, I was just going by what I had seen on other articles. :) --BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to be sorry about, it's all in good faith :) --IllaZilla (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Blink-182 and Simple Plan

Hi there. I just read your message. I understand the confusion, as Blink-182 are still considered as one of the best Pop Punk bands of all time (such as Sum 41, Green Day, The Offspring, New Found Glory, etc.), but I think it's safe to say that they have certainly changed styles. They're really not Pop Punk anymore. However I will try to find a link to stop confusion. I'm not the best Wikipedia editor but I always give it my best. Oh and Simple Plan are certainly still Pop Punk. That edit was a mistake I made. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewtwo465 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from File:Rancid - Ruby Soho cover.jpg. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Your reason for removing the tag isn't legit. Leave it alone unless you can supply a real source. (Try reading what it says!) Eeekster (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It most certainly is "legit". I did read what the tag says, thank you. I'm not new to this, I work with album cover images all the time and I know darn well what I'm doing. Please read the note I left on your talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Alien

If you'll check the article, your confusion should be abated. The new reference is now in place, and would have been quicker if not for your edit. Pkeets (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually it would have been quicker if you'd changed the reference on the first go, rather than straight reverting. But I'm happy that a more reliable source is in place. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to retype the whole thing. It would have taken maybe 10 seconds to add the new reference if not for your edit. Resolving the edit conflict took longer. Pkeets (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it was a case of bad timing: We were both editing rapidly. Your revert popped up at the top of my watchlist, and I undid it before you could change the reference. I had no way of knowing you were in the act of changing it. As I said, that would have been avoided if you'd changed the reference the first time (when you click "undo", the edit window opens with the restored text...you could have changed the reference and amended the edit summary before clicking save, thus avoiding the conflict altogether). Anyway, as I said, I'm glad you changed the reference and I'm interested in checking out this Alien Vault book. Bygones? --IllaZilla (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Pkeets (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Are you Sam? --124.183.113.244 (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Although I'm tempted to say "Sam I am", no, I'm not. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding. have a awesome day. --124.183.113.244 (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Carrie Henn

Ms. Henn only having only acting one is similar to Peter Ostrum who starred in Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (granted his article has plenty of references). The article has a free image of Ms. Henn and she was was recently profiled in an issue of Entertainment Weekly (reliable source) which I included in the article before you had it redirected again. Redirecting a living person to work of art as you are doing now is nonsensical regardless if it is Ms. Henn's only acting role. I will be forced to list it in WP:RFD. QuasyBoy 16:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not nonsensical. She is only notable for her role in Aliens, and her role in that film and the award she received for it are completely covered in that article. She has not done anything else notable nor received significant coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. The situation does not appear to be the same as Peter Ostrum, as (as you note) that article has multiple reliable secondary sources that appear to give significant coverage of him, whereas the Carrie Henn article had only 1 (the EW article), and all it did was mention her current job in a "where are they now?" way. As she has never done anything else of note beyond her single role in Aliens, and what sources there are all discuss her in that capacity, there's isn't enough to say about her outside of that role to get more than a stub or start-class article out of it. WP:NACTOR sets the criteria as "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films". Henn doesn't satisfy this criteria, and since her role in and recognition for Aliens is completely covered in the film article there is no reason for a stand-alone article on her. The presence of a free image is irrelevant and has no bearing on the issue of her notability. It is certainly not nonsensical to redirect a person who is only notable for 1 thing to the article about that thing...this is done all the time on Wikipedia, in fact. You go ahead and take it to RFD if you want, but I'm pretty confident the community will agree that the article should remain a redirect. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, redirecting living people to works of art is discouraged. It should only happen if substantial information on the person is in the art article which is not the case at the moment. Leaving the article redlinked with no article at all is always the better option. I have seen redirects deleted for that reason. Since you feel otherwise, I will go ahead and list it in RFD. QuasyBoy 22:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I simply don't agree with you that "redirecting living people to works of art is discouraged". In my 5½ years as a Wikipedian I've seen many actors/musicians/other people who were only notable for 1 thing redirected to the article about that thing (be it a film, band, court case, whatever). It's quite common, and unless you can point to a policy or guideline that says otherwise I'm going to have to continue to respectfully disagree with you on this. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Good Riddance - Gidget (EP)

Hey, I noticed you removed my comment about the Gidget EP quote coming from the movie Suspiria (1977). That's the first time I've ever edited a Wikipedia page and I was wondering if you could help a noob out and let me know why... looked like it was a source issue? How do I source it? I can't find a clip online and it'd be illegal for me to post one. I've wondered where that came from since I bought the EP in the 90s. Last night I saw Suspiria for the first time and was stoked when I heard the quote. Thought someone else might find the info useful. In case you don't have the EP, here's the clip/song I'm referring to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w5DnUkZVh4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subindie (talk • contribs) 20:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of the clip; Good Riddance used dialogue clips from films and speeches as intros in a number of their tracks (most of these were collected for the intro at their final show, track 1 on Remain in Memory: The Final Show). What you need to do is cite a source for the claim, in order to make the info verifiable. Ideally this should be from a secondary source, but if the EP's liner notes mention the film that the dialogue came from then you could cite the EP itself using {{Cite album-notes}}. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't

The "Surrender" single by Angels & Airwaves source is here: check before removing next time. [12] --124.183.113.244 (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You inserted 2 links as your source the last time around. The one I clicked on was a listing for the whole album. Sorry for the confusion. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries, we are not here to make enemies. we all make mistakes. --124.183.113.244 (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Neighborhoods (Blink-182 album)

Why were you using a marginally reliable German chart for the source? CTJF83 20:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't. If you'll look further back in the history, I'm not the one who originally added that source. My reverts have been of editors who change the figure without explanation, making it contradict the cited source. If anyone would care to change out the source for a more reliable one that gives a more accurate figure, that'd be fine, but all we've had so far is people changing the figure without changing the source, which makes the info no longer verifiable from the source it's cited to. This is unacceptable. There's a discussion about this on the article's talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok, my apologies then...I put in a Billboard source earlier. CTJF83 02:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw that. Great work. I'd been looking for it to show up on Billboard.com but had trouble finding it. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick to Correct

Im sorry to be forward but who are you and what's your obsession with Atom Willard? The dude is one of my closest friends. yet I can't update anything on him without it being criticized by you. If you work for Wiki then I'm cool with it ... but if you merely have no time on your hands and continually follow AVA and the band members stuff then at least acknowledge a fact. Look it up if you don't believe it. Just frustrating. Im trying to follow rules. Just not sure why you are alerted so quickly. If you are that interested in the information being factual then I would think you would correct it yourself. And it should be caps The HELL. But I have no way to prove that to you without getting into personal communication I have had with my friend. I hope you are getting paid for this ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacolonn (talk • contribs) 06:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

1. I'm a Wikipedia editor, that's all that's relevant.
2. I don't have an "obsession" with Willard; I edit a lot of music articles (bands/musicians/albums/etc). The article happens to be on my watchlist, and I check my watchlist several times a day. I *have* been a fan of Willard's ever since his days in Rocket from the Crypt, and have followed some of his other acts as well. Alkaline Trio happens to be another of my favorite bands, and I follow both Willard and Matt Skiba on Twitter, so yes I'm aware of The Hell.
3. Very few people work for or get paid for writing for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is built entirely by volunteers, of which I am one.
4. If you are a personal friend of Willard then I recommend you read WP:COI.
5. I have not criticized you. I have edited the article (which is fully within my rights...this is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit") to fix some of the problems with your edits. I stated reasons in my edit summary. Don't be so defensive; you've only made a few edits, and only on 2 occasions (1 in October and the rest all within the last few hours).
6. I don't "continually follow AVA and the band members"...As previously stated, I have a lot of music-related articles on my watchlist. Willard is the only AVA member whose article is on my watchlist. My interest in him is primarily RFTC-related.
7. For the capitalization, please see MOS:TM. Wikipedia uses standard English capitalization, not all-caps, even if all-caps is the preference of the trademark holder.
8. For the Facebook citation, please see WP:FACEBOOK. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources and generally does not accept references to social networking sites. Willard and Skiba are famous musicians, so it shouldn't be hard to find coverage of this project in reliable secondary sources.

If you have any questions or need any assistance, please ask, I'm happy to help. But please try to be civil. The tone of your comment above is rather accusatory. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Anarchy Burger

I included the quote, not specifically for its significance for being quoted in the movie. It is one of the great rebellious lyrics of the punk generation, perhaps of all time. The fact that the movie also quoted it, demonstrates its significance. That song, that lyric almost by itself made the career for the Vandals. That's why the passage should be included in the article, the several articles about the band, the song, the album (versions). Trackinfo (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a heavy load of POV you're pushing there. "One of the great rebellious lyrics of the punk generation, perhaps of all time"??? The song is from the debut EP by a humor-based punk band and had almost no impact outside of local punk circles. You would most certainly need to cite reliable third-party sources attesting to the significance of this "great, rebellious" lyric and its significance to the band's career to lend these claims any credibility at all. I'm sorry, but even as a longtime Vandals fan who owns all of their albums (including When in Rome on the original National Trust vinyl), that claim is laughable. I wrote or rewrote most of these Vandals articles back in my early days as a Wikipedian; I really should go back through them & remove the POV & unsourced claims. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Snatch

Hi, in the film "Snatch" the term "Irish Traveller's" is never used - in the UK it is used as a politically correct term for their race but generally they accept the term "Gypsy". If you call them "Pikey's" or "Gypo's" they generally go mad as they find it insulting to their race. I have changed the wording to "gyspy encampment" as it is more in term with the film and how the population of the UK know these people. If you can come up with another term or you disagree with the word change then please let me know. Hear from you soon hopefully, --Alphacatmarnie (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of being PC or not: The problem is gypsy links to a disambiguation page, so it isn't helpful to a reader in understanding the context (it's too generic a term). Irish gypsy redirects to Irish Travellers. Pikey would be the most direct link, and that article explains that they are "Irish Travellers, gypsies or people of low social class". The gypsies in the film are clearly Irish: Brad Pitt's character is name Mickey O'Neil, for pete's sake. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Pikey it is then! --Alphacatmarnie (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: List of Alien characters

I'm inclined to disagree with your stance here, but I'd rather drop by than just revert - although the article is just a bunch of rehashed plot material, and is therefore of low value to the project, it should be a summary style article encompassing greater depth (mention of Ripley's effect on action protagonists, cultural impact of Hudson, awards won by Henn for playing Newt, etc etc) - and that article would be of much higher importance. I think keeping it at high-importance would hopefully encourage that kind of editing (probably won't though), rather than just writing it off. Thoughts? GRAPPLE X 21:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not going to have any effect anyway. I'm the creator of WP:ALIEN & AFAIK you, Hyliad, & I are the only active members who've actually edited any of the articles in some time. The importance is based on the potential of the article to reach FA (or in this case FL) status, which for a list of characters like this is pretty low as most of the minor characters will not have received significant secondary source coverage. The important characters (Ripley, Ash, etc.) have separate articles in which they are covered in-depth; Those article are of higher importance as they actually have potential to develop into good articles. The character lists were essentially created as dumping grounds, to give the fanboys & IPs who just want character-by-character plot rehashes & death descriptions a playground away from the core film articles. I'm sorry if that sounds cynical/jaded, but as I've watched & worked on these articles for years I speak from experience. There's very little point to these character lists, as the individual characters' roles in the plots are already covered in each of the film articles & the actually important characters have separate articles (let's not get into the Newt business again). --IllaZilla (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I do see your point, but I figure it's still worth revisiting the article in the future if and when the separate articles are expanded - a few lines copied and pasted from each to cover critical reception or analysis, etc, would still serve to lift the article up. If there's ever a genuine effort to that effect, it might be worth splitting the article (List of Alien characters and List of minor Alien characters) to shed some of the dead-end stuff and still leave room for a summary style article with proper structure and sourcing. An external link to a wikia site and a stern hand on the undo button would still need to be employed, obviously. I've been considering something similar for WP:TXF, so if that turns out well it might be worth revisiting with this one. GRAPPLE X 22:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Snatch (2)

Hi, just a query on your reversion. In the UK Turkish's business would be called as an amusement arcade and not a casino - such as www.agoraamusements.co.uk who operate small venues like the one Turkish has on a local high street. they are licenced for gambling machines but they are not classed as casino's. Please email me if you disagree or you have alternative term for the article? Regards Alphacatmarnie (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's clear whether Turkish's establishment is legal or illegal, and I'm not familiar with UK business laws or common terminology, but it's pretty clear from what's shown that it's a gambling establishment, aka a casino. I think it's important to establish that it's a gambling establishment as opposed to a video game establishment, so "arcade" is too generic a term considering that Wikipedia has an international readership: Here in the United States for example "arcade" means video game establishment...Street Fighter not pachinko. We do have an article on amusement arcade that says "in some countries, some types of arcades are also legally permitted to provide gambling machines such as slot machines or pachinko machines." Perhaps we should say "gambling arcade" and pipe the link to amusement arcade thusly: [[amusement arcade|gambling arcade]] = gambling arcade. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Once again sir I bow down to your advice!

Many thanks.

Alphacatmarnie (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Alien (film)

IllaZilla, in regard to this edit of yours, could you please explain your edit summary? That the alien isn't a person was my point, so I don't see how its not being a person is a reason for reverting me. Also, what does Jurassic Park have to do with it? Thanks. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I must've misread your edit summary as "isn't it a person?" rather than "it isn't a person", which is why I made the comparison to Jurassic Park (in the past some editors have changed the wording in such as way as to treat the Alien as a person/character, rather than a creature, in response to which I've drawn comparisons to the velociraptors in Jurassic Park or the shark in Jaws). In any case, its being a person or not has no bearing on whether we should use "which" or "that": if it were a person, "who" would be the alternate choice, no "that". "Which" is used when referring to one of a group, so I think "that" would actually be the better word choice here. I won't revert if you change it again. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not you

I presume this is not you, so you might want to do something about it. --Muhandes (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Rocket From The Crypt - RIP

I'll be the first to admit that I am not a huge Wikipedia editor, and only do it once in a while...and usually they are just minor changes. However, I don't see how the original albums for the tracks on Rocket From The Crypt's "RIP" are not relevant to the page, because Rocket From The Crypt has a pretty diverse discography. It makes the page much better to have the albums on there so you can see at first glance where the original recordings can be found. I actually made the changes on the page because I had seen other "live" album pages that list the original records from the live tracks. I think the only mistake I made is that I should have listed the tracks from All Systems Go in their original 7-inch single format, and not the compilation. Thoughts on this? I'd like to change this back. Brarig219 (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The mistake I noticed was that "Velvet Touch" was listed as being from RIP, when in fact it's from Paint as a Fragrance. Anyway, from my experience (I've worked with hundreds of album articles) listing the original albums generally isn't necessary for live albums, as a live album isn't a collection of tracks from different sources. For a compilation album (like the All Systems Gos), listing the original releases is helpful because readers can see from where/when the various tracks were compiled. But as a live album is generally a recording of a single performance, rather than a cobbling together of previously-released material, the original sources aren't that relevant. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ramones

Hi there,

Thanks for responding re the Ramones page. I have responded again and added a commment to the talk page. I'd be grateful if you could take a look and advise your comments again please?

Socheid (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The article & talk page are on my watchlist, so I'll continue to participate in the discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Wooblz/Thornofhate/Chickensdoorknob unblock

It's been about 6 months since his last incident (that I know of) and now he's asking about WP:OFFER, I've given some input but more would be welcome at User talk:Chickensdoorknob. Cheers. Яehevkor ✉ 16:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Alien Resurrection

I'm not discouraging a thing. I'm merely adding another section header so that a simple straw poll (which is a vote) can be seen and read without navigating another wall of text. The two sections are clearly related but do not have to be one and the same - I specifically asked editors not to comment when casting a straw vote, after all, as frankly I'm tired of seeing simple matters turned into reams of text which will, as always, go nowhere - you will not convince GothicFilm of your approach, he will not convince you of his, and you'll bury the subject in an increasingly-unrelated discussion. Keep the comments slightly walled off from the straw poll and we can at least settle one issue at a time. GRAPPLE X 15:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an attempt at building consensus. It is not a vote. Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and you generally use a straw poll to guage opinions after a reasoned discussion has taken place. Your initial complaint was "Christ, has nobody actually started talking yet?" Well, now we are talking. You can't have your cake and eat it too. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If I was to have my cake and eat it, this would have been settled without me having to get involved at all. The "reasoned discussion" taking place here is not that related to the original dispute, but one that has grown laterally from it - and which seems to be having no bearing on it at all, as neither party is going to move on the matter. If either of you want to debate the merits of either side of the original dispute, then by all means do so, but shoehorning a secondary argument into the first one just overcomplicates both. GRAPPLE X 15:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The original dispute was with the IP, and I don't see any indication that they're interested in discussing it. They haven't responded to messages on their talk page, & they haven't come to the article talk page to discuss the issue either. Gothicfilm's third option wasn't part of the original dispute either, but it certainly has bearing on the issue at the center of the dispute and is therefore worth discussing. By "having your cake and eating it too", I mean you cannot ask that people discuss an issue and then dictate the manner in which they discuss it, or get upset when the discussion takes a different turn than you originally intended. Consensus is an organic process; What starts as a poll may evolve into a more nuanced discussion, and you shouldn't shuffle other people's arguments off to another section just because all you wanted was a show of hands. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco meetup at WMF headquarters

Hi IllaZilla,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

T.S.O.L. (EP)

Hey, I do not really appreciate you calling my edit on T.S.O.L. (EP) a "mess of edits". My edits really were not that bad, it is not like I vandalised it or made that stupid article worse that it already is (it is not that bad). I do not know what your problem is recently, but all you have been wanting to do is criticize my edits, act like I am stupid, act like I do not know what I am doing (I do, despite what you think) and act like you know more about whatever we are editing that me. My edits may not all be 100% improvements, but you could at least be nice about it. We used to get along great, you used to give me pointers, I used to come to you for help all of the time, but now how you have been acting, I am uncomfortable doing so. Practically every article that you edit frequently that I edit on you revert every edit I make on them, so I am also uncomfortable editing an article that I see you on. I know not every edit I make is a "mess". Now, I want to get along with you, but you are really starting to get on my nerves extremely. If you have any suggestions on how to get along, I am all for it. --BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, a lot of your edits on a lot of article are fine, and you do lots of contributions on articles I don't watch, as I'm sure I do lots of contributions on articles you don't watch, so don't act like I'm looking over your shoulder or reverting all your edits, because that's simply untrue. How nice that you think the article I wrote from scratch in my userspace, gathered sources for, and launched in an almost completed state is a "stupid article" that's "not that bad" and that you "didn't make worse than it already is". Wow, thanks for that polite assessment. Just because your edits aren't vandalism, or you don't think they make things worse, doesn't mean they're making things better. When you feel you have to preemptively defend your edits in every edit summary, that's a clue that maybe they aren't constructive. A great deal of what you did to the T.S.O.L. (EP) article falls under the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" category. Here are a few examples:

1. Capitalization: You seem to like to change the capitalization in links and templates, even when it (A) has no effect or (B) is incorrect. Eg, you changed {{Infobox album}} to {{Infobox Album}}, even though the name of the template is Template:Infobox album (lowercase "a"). At the same time, you decapitalized {{Reflist}} to {{reflist}}, even though the name of the template is Template:Reflist (capital "R"). This doesn't have any actual effect on the article, but it's one of those "why is he making a change that has no effect but is technically incorrect?" edits, which you seem to make a lot of. They also technically cause template redirects, and a bot would have come along and fixed them eventually if I hadn't undone the edit myself. Also you really like to capitalize things in piped links, ie. [[drum kit|drums]] → [[Drum kit|drums]], even though this literally has no effect either aesthetically or technically; the link displays the same, and you do not have to capitalize within piped links any more than you have to capitalize within a non-piped link. The link will take you directly to the drum kit article whether the "d" is capitalized or not. Another "ain't broke, don't fix" change.
2. Removing templates from the infobox, even though the infobox is supposed to use those templates. You removed {{Start date}} and {{Duration}}, even though the infobox is supposed to use those templates as a means of formatting times and dates according to users' preferences. See Template:Infobox album#Code and the rest of the template documentation (the start date template is currently hidden in the article because I couldn't find the exact date of release, just the year, but the template remains in the edit window so that it can be applied if/when the exact release date is found).
3. Removing relevant content: You removed the EP's catalog number from the infobox, even though it is pertinent and is sourced in the article body.
4. Inserting incorrect information: You added "backing vocals" to Ron Emory's role because "look at the cover". The cover is a live photograph; what they're doing in that image isn't necessarily what they did on the album. The personnel are credited just as they are in the liner notes, and Emory did not sing any backing vocals on the EP (in fact there are no backing vocals on the EP at all, just Grisham's lead vocals). You wouldn't know this, since you probably haven't read the liner notes, but you made the change anyway just based on your own assumption.
5. Removing relevant links: You removed links to compilation album and Frontier Records that are entirely relevant and contextual
6. Swapping specific links out for less specific ones: You changed mix engineer, a specific link, to audio mixing (recorded music), a less specific one. In general you should always link to the most specific target article. If the person is a mix engineer, link to mix engineer.

I've created something like 200 articles. I was careful in crafting this one, and all of the technical details, links, etc. were correct; none of them needed to be changed. Your edits either changed nothing or reduced the quality of the article. You often seem to make changes just for the sake of making changes, even if the best you can say of them is they "aren't vandalism" and "didn't make it worse". These kinds of changes are just annoying. I'm happy to help you in making constructive changes, but these changes weren't constructive. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I never said you were watching me, it just so happens that we edit alot of the same articles. Second, I never said your article was bad, calling it "stupid" was just an example of how you make me feel when you call my edits a "mess", it is no different that what you said to me. I actually thought you did pretty good on the article. Sorry if I hurt your feelings saying that, I only said that to prove a point. And yes, there are backing vocals on the EP, listen to "Abolish Government/Silent Majority". And I am so sorry that I "like to capitalize" things, that is how I was tought to edit things. And about the catalog number thing, most good/featured articles do not have the catalog number in the infobox. The only reason I even said anything about this to you was that I was hoping we could work something out and start getting along again, because it seems like (I am not saying that is how it is) you have been breathing down my neck. But all you are doing is trying to make me look like the one with the problem, that I am "over-reacting". All I really want is to get along with you, and I really would like an apology, those edits may not have been "constructive" or whatever, but you still hurt my feelings calling them a "mess". And about the "making edits for the sake of it", I usually make edits based on good/featured articles, whether it is minor changes in wording or what, hoping that maybe I could help get an article good/featured. And how would you feel if I said that your reverts are "just annoying"? Again, that was just an example of how you make me feel... --BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you own the EP? Take a look at the liner notes. The only person credited with any vocals is Jack Grisham. The bits in "Abolish Government / Silent Majority" are more than likely just Grisham's voice multitracked, as no one else is credited with any kind of vocals. I'm sorry if my frank assessment of your edits hurt your feelings, but the mass of minor, unnecessary, ineffective edits was a mess. I don't know where you got the idea that you need to capitalize piped links or change the capitalization of templates, but you can stop doing that. The catalog number is pertinent, especially to a release that's obscure or been re-released multiple times by different labels, and it's sourced in the article body.

I'm sorry if it feels like I've been breathing down your neck; As you say our areas of interest often overlap so we tend to bump into each other quite a bit. Sometimes I'll see an edit you've made, and it'll prompt me to take a quick look at the article and maybe make an edit of my own, or undo something about your edit that was incorrect or problematic. But like I said, there are many articles that you edit that I've never even looked at, and I'm sure the reverse is true as well. As far as the TSOL EP is concerned, you didn't make minor changes in wording or do anything that would help advance the article to GA, you just mucked with links and capitalization for no apparent reason. Since it was all unnecessary, ineffectual, and in some cases incorrect, I reverted. I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but I'm just being frank about what I saw.

And just as you want me to understand the way my reverts made you feel, try putting yourself in my shoes: I spent a couple of days writing a well-referenced, well-structured article in userspace, applying the 5+ years of Wikipedia experience I have and the experience gained from having created 200+ articles; I make sure all the links and references are correct and that it's 100% ready to go, and then I launch it...and less than a day later you come in and make a slew of unnecessary, ineffectual, and in some cases incorrect changes to it for no apparent reason. Do you understand why that would make me feel frustrated?

In general I think your contributions are good, and they're obviously in good faith, but occasionally they're not constructive and it appears you're still on a learning curve. I'm happy to continue working with you and to answer any specific questions you have, particularly about the points I raised above regarding some specifics of your edits. Take some of those points as tips for the future: you don't need to capitalize the target articles in piped links, album infoboxes should use {{Start date}} and {{Duration}}, keep links as specific as possible, and don't change sourced information based on assumptions. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do own the EP. Well, I accept your apology. Yes, I understand why you would get frustrated, just as long as you see why I would get frustrated as well (you seem to understand). The only thing I have to say now is that you are over-exaggerating a bit. We are in the same time-zone, you launched the article on the 7th, I did not touch the article until the early morning of the 10th. And the reason I changed the {{Start date}} and the {{Duration}} is that all that was listed was the year, and on like every article I have seen, the length is just like 7:37 or whatever. Sorry for this minor argument. --BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are a few other minor notes:

• Don't worry about the redlink to Thoughts of Yesterday. I'm in the process of creating articles for all the missing TSOL albums (and revamping the existing ones), so those redlinks will become blue in a matter of weeks.
• The HTML wikimarkup for a line break is <br /> (with a space between the "br" and the "/"). See WP:LINEBREAK.
• You don't need spaces between the * and the text in bulleted lists. It literally has no effect.
• You also don't need an extra line of whitespace between the infobox template and the first line of text. This, too, has literally no effect. These are the kinds of changes I'm talking about when I say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
• There is no need to specify "lead vocals" for Grisham, since no one else does any vocals. He does 100% of the vocals, so just say "vocals". If I'm correct, he also multitracked his vocals to provide his own backups (he's multitracked on many recordings, I believe), so he's doing more than just leads on the recording itself.
• You need the "in" in the recording details in the infobox for grammar, because the recording studio is a specific locale. Think of it as if you were telling someone you were going to Disney World. You'd say "I'm going to Disney World in Orlando, Florida", not "I'm going to Disney World, Orlando, Florida".
• You don't need a comma after "1997" in the sentence about the re-release. It's extraneous.
• "Eponymous" is incorrect, as it refers to the one giving their name to the thing. In other words, T.S.O.L. is the eponymous author of the EP. The EP, however, is eponymously-titled, as it is titled after its creator. See eponym and the dictionary definitions of eponym and eponymous.
• We need to specify that Dance with Me was their first full length album. "Studio album" doesn't cut it, as the EP is also a studio release. Also the had no other albums before that, so "studio" doesn't distinguish it from anything else. "Full length", however, distinguishes it from the EP, which is the point of the descriptor in the sentence.
• Hines is not actually credited as producer in the liner notes. He's credited with recording and mixing. No actual producer is credited, but he's listed in the producer field in the infobox because, other than the band themselves, he was the sole presence in the studio helping to craft the album.
• Spaces are used before and after a slash when the 2 terms being separated are separate constructions. For example, you don't use spaces when you say "and/or" or "he/she" because you're not making 2 separate words, only 1 of those words belongs in the sentence but it could be either one. When both words belong in the complete sentence, you use spaces, as in Brain Stew / Jaded, T.S.O.L. / Weathered Statues, or Alkaline Trio / Hot Water Music. An unspaced slash is for when you're making a choice between 2 possible words, a spaced slash denotes 2 separate terms.

I strongly ask that you trust my expertise here. This isn't my first article; I knew what I was doing when I put it together, and there's nothing that you need to "fix" about the spaces, credits, terminology, etc. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the reason I changed the Personnel links is because the other day when I edited the article, mix engineer just redirected to audio mixing (recorded music). And yes, there should be a comma. Read like every good/featured article, they all are like "In 1997, ..." or whatever. And about the "eponymous" thing, I see what you are saying, but other articles use "eponymous" rather than "eponymously-titled", and the article for "self-titled" albums is called List of eponymous albums... --BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Those other articles are grammatically incorrect and ought to be fixed. It's impossible for an album to be eponymous, unless something is named after the album. A person (or band) is eponymous in relation to something that's named after them, but not the other way around. For example:

• Correct: "Rowland Hussey Macy, the eponymous founder of Macy's..." or "Macy's is a department store chain. Its eponymous founder, Rowland Hussey Macy, originally operated several dry goods stores..."

Mr. Macy is the eponymous one, as he is the person for whom the store is named. The company is not eponymous in these sentences, because Mr. Macy is not named for the company. However the company can be eponymous in relation to the parade it presents each year: "The company presents its eponymous Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade annually...".

• Incorrect: "Metallica is the eponymous 1991 album by Metallica..."

The band is not named after the album, it's the other way around. A correct version of this same sentence would be "Metallica is the eponymously-titled 1991 album by Metallica...".

"Self-titled", though a widely used term for many years, is grammatically incorrect slang in the way it is most often used. A self-portrait is a portrait of you, painted by you. If someone is a "self-made man", it means they achieved all their accomplishments themselves. If a band self-produces their album, it means they produced it themselves without outside help. So "self-titled" means they titled it (chose the title) themselves, not that they named it after themselves. To call an album "self-titled" is to say that the album chose its own title, which of course is ridiculous.

I grant that the mix engineer article is pretty poor, and it should probably be merged into or redirected to audio mixing (recorded music), but I don't believe that it was a redirect when you edited the article. According to its page history, mix engineer has never redirected anywhere. In fact just today the article had its first edit in 6 months, so it's impossible that it was a redirect at the time you edited the T.S.O.L. (EP) article. The comma was unnecessary; You don't need a comma every time you begin a sentence with a date. That's classic overuse of commas (see WP:COMMA). It's moot now, since I've reconstructed the sentence a bit. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Any sources for release

Do you have any information about the films' release and/or premiere? I predict that sooner or later somebody would raise this point during the course of the GAN. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't. I'm assuming you've tried online searches, but that's the best lead I can give you. My primary interest for film articles is the Alien franchise, and I've got several books on that but nothing on the Terminator franchise. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you happy with the current state of the article? It needs polishing, no doubt about that, but do you think it's virtually complete? Do I need to add some more "meat" into it? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say for GA it's plenty ready. Remember a good reviewer is going to both help out and offer at least a week for you to fix anything you've overlooked; but as it is I'd have no problem passing it. Obviously the FA crowd demand more but it'd not be difficult to find out through a good GA review and a peer review what they might want done. GRAPPLE X 03:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

@Grapple X, based on your contributions to the posts at Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day, am I right to assume that you're a Terminator fan? Back to this post, I am slightly concerned with the lack of information regarding the film's release, as compared to FAs such as Jurassic Park (film) (1993). This film was release only two years after T2, but it has so much info about its release/distribution. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read it through; I wanted to wait til you were pretty much done with your changes. On a cursory glance it looks ready for a GA review, certainly comprehensive enough. Like Grapple says, you'll likely get some suggestions and a week to work on them, then it would most likely pass. I say go for it. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Speedy, I am. Mostly just the first film, though—T2 is popcorn action done well, but The Terminator is a wonderfully taut thriller that always put me in mind of Westworld. As for the amount of release information, yes there could be more, but unless you come up against a harsh FA review in the future it's not an issue. For GA, the fact that it's documented and isn't unduly sparse is more than good enough. If you want I can try searching JSTOR for you next week for anything extra but you'll have to keep reminding me about it. GRAPPLE X 03:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what JSTOR is, but I hope it helps. BTW, T1/T2 are excellent, beucase they're James Cameron films. T3 is alright, and TS really sucks -- there was hardly any climax at all, and I thought blowing up the building was just the start :P --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

One more thing, do you think it's feasible if I start a portal on the Terminator franchise? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR is a digital academic journal database. Usually you have to be a registered university student to access it. I used to use in all the time in undergrad & grad school, but I doubt I have access to it anymore. A portal might be an idea, but the topic of Terminator is pretty narrow to necessitate a portal. We're only talking about maybe 2 dozen articles here. I launched Portal:Alien and though it came out alright it was pretty much dead in the water from the get-go, as I was the only one interested in maintaining it. If you're interested in pursuing it, though, WP:PORTAL is a good place to start. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

T2 has met a dead end :(

Thanks for helping out during the GAN; the article is now a GA! --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work! Great job improving the article! --IllaZilla (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to get it to FA, but Betty Logan says I need more reliable sources like books -- looks like it's a dead end. Anyway, thank you for the Award! --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Predators (film)

Hello, IllaZilla. I'm not sure why you think that someone who awakes could have been anything other than unconscious before he awakes (sleep is one form of unconsciousness). I am therefore going to revert you at Predators (film), although not right away, for obvious reasons. Maybe you could take up this issue with WikiProject film? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's necessary to establish that he was unconscious. The intro doesn't make much sense if it just says "he awakens to find himself parachuting". What, he went to bed the night before and woke up falling though the sky? No, he was in combat, saw a flash of light, lost consciousness, and woke up in freefall, as did the other characters. Asleep and unconscious have very different connotations: The former is a naturally-occurring cycle from which one can easily be awoken, while the latter implies being knocked out by mitigating external factors (blow to the head, drugs, etc). Since the film begins with Royce regaining consciousness (as the result of being involuntarily rendered unconscious by alien abduction, though this isn't yet known either to him or to the viewer), we must of course establish that he was unconscious to begin with. The film does this through visual cues, but we must put it in writing for readers to understand the context (that he is clearly "coming to" from being knocked out, as opposed to waking up from a nap). It would be simpler to say "he regains consciousness" (a common phrasing to refer to someone coming to after being knocked out), but it makes for an awkward opening sentence since, again, we haven't yet established to the reader that he's unconscious.

I'm disturbed by your remark "I am therefore going to revert you, although not right away, for obvious reasons." This is pretty much a declaration that you're going to edit-war, but deliberately wait in order to avoid being blocked for 3RR. This would, of course, still be edit warring regardless. I again remind you of WP:BRD, and that you should have taken this up on the article's talk page after the first revert. I think the wording before your edit was better, and the burden's on you to convince me (& others) that it's not. You want the change, you take it to WP:FILM, and don't revert again without sufficient discussion. Believing you are right does not give you license to revert. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never said that the plot section should read "he awakens to find himself parachuting." I simply think it's incorrect for it to say, "Royce (Adrien Brody) awakens from unconsciousness to find himself parachuting into an unfamiliar jungle", and I've tried to explain why; if he had to awaken, he clearly was unconscious before. The rigid distinction you're trying to make between sleep and unconsciousness looks unsupported to me; if you really want to show how much you know about the subject, try quoting medical texts, not dictionaries, which are pretty much useless for settling such issues. It is not universally true that one can easily be woken from sleep. Nor does being unconscious imply being knocked out by anything; one can be unconscious for a hundred reasons or more. Unconsciousness is a larger category that subsumes sleep. That is the only crucial point. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

And regarding the edit warring thing, yeah, I'm aware that slow-mo edit warring is still edit warring. So no worries there. I do my best to respect Wikipedia's policies, though of course I am not perfect. I'm sure the issue will get resolved somehow or other; I might copy this discussion to the article's talk page, or, alternately, you could do that. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think my prior comments were a little heated. Apologies, been a long day. Anyway, it's a difficult opening to describe, sentence-wise, because it basically does a cold-open with Royce coming to in freefall. Your edit did make it say "Royce (Adrien Brody) awakens to find himself parachuting into an unfamiliar jungle", and to me that comes off too abrupt and kind of confusing. Awakens? Was he sleeping beforehand? No, he was clearly knocked out, and the later conversations with the other characters make this clear (in combat → bright light → unconscious → woke up in freefall). To me it's important to establish that he was unconscious, as simply saying he "awakens in freefall" sounds as though everything was fine beforehand, like he was taking a nap, whereas "awakens from unconsciousness" better conveys that he was knocked out (which he was). Unless you can think of a better way of conveying his state of being in the first few seconds (knocked out). In a case like 28 Days Later we can say the character "awakens from a coma", but it's more difficult to phrase "wakes up after having been mysteriously knocked out" without preemptively explaining the alien abduction bit. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You are right about the effect of my edit; I should have looked more carefully.

The third edition of The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology by Arthur S. Reber and Emily Reber defines "unconsciousness" as "the state of being unconscious." It then refers the reader to the entry "unconscious", a term that has several meanings. The relevant one is "A state characterized by a lack of awareness; unconsciousness". The entry explains that this meaning is "more or less nontechnical"; being a nontechnical term, it clearly isn't something that can be applied rigidly. The entry clarifies this particular sense of "unconscious" and its adjective form with the words, "When they occur in technical writings these meanings are roughly equivalent to those in everyday language; that is, they refer to that pole of the dimension of mental arousal that is exemplified by coma, fainting, deep sleep or the result of general anaesthesia." So I wasn't quite right to say that unconsciousness is a larger category that subsumes sleep, but yes, certain forms of sleep do indeed count as unconsciousness, so the strict distinction you're trying to base your argument on is unfounded. Your personal assumptions about the implications of "unconsciousness" don't reflect a proper understanding of the subject. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Medical jargon aside, how would you better construct the sentence to accurately convey to a reader that he is coming to after being knocked out? Again, simply saying "he awakens" doesn't do enough to convey his prior state. There's a significant difference, story-wise, between awakening from sleep and awakening from an alien abduction that rendered the character unconscious. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If we want to get things right - either the content of the article or the arguments we're using to prefer one version or another - it's no use to dismiss what a helpful source (and a dictionary of psychology, unlike a non-specialized general dictionary, is actually some use here) as "jargon". You insisted that sleep and unconsciousness have strictly different connotations; they don't. It's little use to say that "There's a significant difference, story-wise, between awakening from sleep and awakening from an alien abduction that rendered the character unconscious" when 'unconscious' actually includes sleep, in at least some cases. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm not interested in debating the meaning of the word; It's not helping us improve the sentence to convey what it needs to. How do we clearly establish to the reader, right at the beginning, that the character is coming to after having been out cold? Might we say, "An unconscious Royce (Adrien Brody) awakens to find himself in freefall" or something like that? I think this better conveys the idea that he's been abducted and knocked out somehow, and is coming out of it and finding himself in a predicament. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that you'd say that you aren't interested in debating the meaning of the word, since you were emphatic that it had one particular meaning. Maybe this shows that you lost the debate? Anyway, I'll re-watch the relevant parts of Predators and reconsider the issue. And the next time I say that for obvious reasons I won't revert you right away, please assume that I mean that I want to leave time for discussion. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

I have removed the image again. The fact that it is near-identical to the film poster certainly is relevant, as it very clearly has an effect with regards to NFCC#3a. Even if they were different, the image quite clearly fails NFCC#8, as it adds very little to the article. While it is generally held that articles on albums can support a single identifying cover image, this does not hold true for articles on films which happen to contain sections on the soundtracks. The soundtrack isn't even significant enough to have its own article, but you still feel that we need an identifying image for it? If the cover is genuinely significant, why does the article not discuss it? If you're not convinced, I'm happy to discuss this with you, but please do not revert me again- the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that the image is required, not with me to demonstrate that it is not. This is explained on the policy page. J Milburn (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The mere fact that it is similar to the film poster does not automatically disqualify it on fair use grounds. It is a separate item of media, representing a separate physical item (the soundtrack album, as opposed to the film). Each item is to be evaluated on its own merits and rationale. There is, in fact, an easy qualification for cover art: WP:NFCI "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item". It is not required that the cover and commentary be in a separate article, merely that the critical commentary be present. There is critical commentary of the soundtrack album (albeit minimal), detailing that it spent 6 weeks on the Billboard 200 (which is significant for a soundtrack album). There couls and should certainly be more: The article doesn't say much about the film's music, and the section on the soundtrack album needs some detail on its critical reception, but for an album that spent 6 weeks on the Billboard 200 that shouldn't be hard to find (I'd bet enough could be found to split to a separate article). While I could understand removal on the basis of insufficient critical commentary, "near-identical to the film poster" was not a sufficient reason for removal, as the film poster and album cover are not substitutes for each other. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If I'm honest, I'm inclined to agree with you that the mere fact that two items are similar is not the best of rationales for removal. I just know that it's something that does convince a lot of people, and there is a general consensus that the similarity of one non-free image to another can be a contributing factor to its removal- it's something that's come up in the "alternative album art" debate a few times. The important (but more fiddly) point here is with regards to what the image adds to the article. Your argument that there is commentary of the album and so the cover is justified is a poor one for a few reasons. Consider: what you're suggesting clearly is not the general practice, otherwise all articles on singers would feature multiple album covers; they certainly have a lot of commentary about that singer's albums. Equally, actors/directors and films, authors on books, and so on. Obviously, the mere fact that an album is discussed very briefly does not justify a non-free image of its cover. This is precisely what NFCC#8 is about- non-free images may be used only if they themselves add significantly to reader understanding. That's a much more stringent criterion than merely being a picture of something relevant. Now, if the cover was used alongside commentary about the cover, then yes, this would be a very different issue. However, as it stands, as far as I can tell, the cover image is of next to no importance, and adds very little to the article. J Milburn (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The comparison to singer/director articles isn't apt. 9 times out of 10 a singer's albums and a director's films are going to have their own articles, and the covers/posters would appear there, so of course having them in the singer/director's article as well would fail the "minimal use" criterion of NFCC. However, in a case like this one where the entire coverage of the item in question is to be found within the article on the parent topic, and there is no separate article (due to it being of insufficient length to stand alone or simply that the coverage reads better if presented in the context of the parent topic), the use of cover art for identification of the item passes. The critical commentary does not have to be about the cover itself, merely about the item the cover represents. NFC explicitly spells this out. It's why album cover, film poster, and book cover images are permitted in the infoboxes of articles about those works, even if the image itself is not specifically discussed as part of the critical commentary on the album/film/book. Whether the commentary is in a stand-alone article or a subsection of a larger article is not a criteria of NFCC. All that said, I agree that in the case of T2 there is, at present, not enough critical commentary about the soundtrack album itself to make a strong argument for including the cover image. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering that you just said that "[e]ach item is to be evaluated on its own merits and rationale", I really can't see how you can now consistently start talking about how albums/films/books that have their own articles wouldn't need non-free content in parent articles. If we're judging usages on their own merits, surely, the use of the image elsewhere wouldn't matter. Even if you are going to cling onto that somewhat inconsistent notion, it would follow from your argument that, for instance, book covers would be warranted in author articles if the books were deemed unimportant, as "the entire coverage of the item in question is to be found within the article on the parent topic". Perhaps we could say the same thing for fictional characters- we wouldn't necessarily need character portraits in an article on a comic book just because none of the characters are notable enough for their own articles. This is what your claim seems to imply. You make the further claim that commentary "does not have to be about the cover itself, merely about the item the cover represents", and make the claim that "NFC explicitly spells this out". This is simply wrong- such a notion laughs in the face of NFCC#8. Non-free content is used if its presence significantly increases reader understanding, not merely if there is some arbitrary amount of commentary on something related to the image. The non-free content criteria are the important thing here, not the lists on the guideline page. That, I think, is where you're going wrong with this. To repeat, we don't look at non-free content and say "hmmm, is there enough commentary about the thing that this is a picture of?" Instead, we say "does this image significantly increase reader understanding?" With the T2 image, the answer is no, and it would almost certainly remain no even if some more information about the soundtrack album was added. J Milburn (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Do you hate me? Why edit delete everything? --GlamMetalANIKILATOR (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't hate you, but I'm certainly not fond of your editing behavior. You're a classic example of a genre warrior: 100% of your edits consist of changing infobox genres in artist and album articles to suit your own point of view, without ever stating a reason for your changes or providing any sources. When other editors ask you to stop this behavior and warn you that you might be blocked, you ignore the warnings and continue changing the genres to suit your own point of view anyway. You never provide any sources to support your changes, you never discuss them when they're challenged, and you completely ignore advice and warnings. This type of single-minded, POV-based editing is a net negative for the project. If you would choose to learn from your mistakes, to search for sources before making changes, to discuss controversial edits on articles' talk pages, and to heed warnings that are given to you, then you might demonstrate that you're a help to Wikpiedia rather than a disruption. But you've been editing for over 2 months & despite 7 warnings on your talk page from 5 different editors, all for the same behavior, you don't seem to have learned any lessons. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit summaries

Hello, IllaZilla. I do not particularly care if you want to attack me in edit summaries, as you did here - I'm a man in his thirties (like you), and I just shrug at this kind of stuff. In a way I even enjoy it. But do be aware that not everyone has this attitude, so it might be best to keep "kindergarten stuff" and similar comments out of edit summaries. OK? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand your stubborn insistence on removing the word "another". It seems you're against it just because that's not literally what comes out of the character's mouth. But it's clearly his meaning, and of course it's correct: His plan was to use the Predator ship to escape the planet. It got blown up, so now he needs to figure out another (or, if you prefer, a different or an alternate) plan. If it just says "a way", it sort of makes it seem as though he didn't have a way in mind before, whereas "another way" recalls the fact that there was an initial plan, and it failed. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I made the edit, you reverted me, and I accepted it, as I often do. Let's just leave it at that shall we? I don't care about that aspect of things. I only wanted to note that while edit summaries dissing other editors aren't a problem to me, other editors might react to them more negatively. Something to think about. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic because this was the second time you'd done it. Consider the snark rescinded. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

On a more serious note, despite what you say here, present tense is indeed the convention for written material, in most cases. It's not an absolute rule, but it does apply generally. I don't have the specific guideline at my fingertips, but I'm right on this issue, believe me, though I won't revert right away (or at all, necessarily; I'll think about it). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have never, ever seen that "convention" in any MoS, so unless you can provide proof, I'm skeptical. We're talking about comments these people made 2 years ago, so we use the past tense. I just did a random sampling of 5 FAs and they all use past tense:

• Jurassic Park (film)#Reception
• Blade Runner#Reception
• Little Miss Sunshine#Critical reception
• Fight Club#Critical reception
• Tropic Thunder#Reception

I have used the present tense to refer to sources before, when writing papers or theses in which source authors are given an active voice in the dialogue. But in an encyclopedia, where we are referring to things that were said, done, or written in the past, we use the past tense. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I admit that I can currently find the present tense for written material convention listed in MoS, but it is widely observed. You could try asking DGG; he's an experienced librarian and knows all about this kind of stuff. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Devilock

Hey is there a problem with the edits I've been making? 'Cause I had a direct source to the interview with Brian Pushead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FantasticMrHell (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The source you cited was someone's personal blog, hosting what is most likely an illegal download of a recorded interview that the blog owner doesn't have the rights to (they don't even know what year it's from, and it's hosted on mediafire, clearly this is an illegal download: apparently Thrasher magazine was the interviewer and is therefore the copyright holder). If you can track down the print interview and cite it to the original publication, that'd be fine, but people's personal blogs are not reliable sources, and we don't knowingly link to copyright violations. Please see WP:RS for advice on finding sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I get it. Then until I come across a printed version I'll leave it alone. Thank you for enlightening me and sorry for the misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FantasticMrHell (talk • contribs) 03:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Happy editing, and don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Will do. thanks again. --FantasticMrHell (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Information Wanted

Why don't we get this over-with. iTunes and Amazon do not have the radio edit of American Idiot. Do you know what station American Idiot is played on and what area it is in? If you do, could you please tell me. --Largerthanlife147 (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? I'm not a radio station directory. Even if I were, I don't even know where you're from. Do you know how many radio stations there are worldwide? Probably thousands. Hundreds in the United States alone. "American Idiot" is an 8 year old song & was a top-charting song in 8 countries. I'm sure you can find an edited version of it somewhere. Or just find your local rock radio station, call them up or email them, and request it. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

American Idiot's radio edit is not on iTunes nor Amazon. For some reason, Green Day might not have wanted to sell it. --Largerthanlife147 (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but I really don't care. Apparently it was on the promotional CD sent to radio stations. I'm sure you can download it somewhere on the internet, be it legal or otherwise. I'd appreciate it if you didn't bug me about this again. As I said before, I'm not a radio directory. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)