User talk:IllaZilla/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Devilock

You wanna give me more than like ten minutes? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to keep working on it, by all means, but I honestly think a better place for it would be within the Misfits ariticle. The article could use some sourced commentary on the band's look & visual style, and I doubt there's going to be enough source to justify a separate article on such a band-specific hairstyle. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

While it's still associated more strongly with Misfits than anything else, the hairstyle's spread into the greater punk rock visual lexicon and then on to other nations and cultures. Once I find some decent English sources I'll detail its popularity in Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan. The challenge will be in keeping a focus on the hairstyle itself, since many sources don't have anything but a passing mention of it. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Mineral - If I Could.ogg

KBps was too high. Suggested bit-rate is 64KBps for Fair-Use clips... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Music samples merely says that "roughly 64kbps is usually sufficient". The only actual requirment mentioned is that it "must be of reduced quality from the original". I converted it from an mp3 file that is of reduced quality from the original recording (by definition, as mp3s are compressed files). Nonetheless, I will take a look at it when I get home and see if I can reduce it further using the audio editing tools at my disposal. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Where can I find what amount of votes dictates a 'delete,' and how does the eventual delete go about happening? (Albert Mond (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

There is no set standard. You can have a hundred keeps and one delete and the article will be deleted. Same for the other way around. Wikipedia doesn't vote. Admins base an AfD's outcome based on the arguments presented by each side. If the keeps are just "Hey, this is cool, let's keep it!" and the single delete is a well thought-out response, detailing exactly why the article needs deleting, then the article will be deleted. Does that answer your question? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose. So I just wait, right? (Albert Mond (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

Yes, we have to wait out the 7-day AfD period. This gives adequate time for interested editors to voice their opinions. An admin will then weigh consensus based on the arguments and take the appropriate action. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Alien post

It is quite a pity that such a well thought out analysis must not be able to grace wikipedia. Technicalities and political correctness always seem to hurt the truth in some way. And I do say, what If I am a credible source? Who are you or anyone to say that I'm not? Half of the citations on the alien post are links to others just like myself and critics and so on so forth... If you wanted to go to the real source regarding aspects of the movie itself and its ideologies and meanings you'd have to have a link to contact ridely scott, james cameron, the cast, or the writer of the story itself. In my opinion My paper regarding an analytical thought about the movie was perfectly refrenced with links to concepts and everything not seen in the movie itself, and the analysis I gave was quite astonishing. Or, you could have left me a message saying it needs this or that, but I truly must cry foul on this one. If I must refrence every single sentance that describes what is going on in the movie then I will do so, but to blatently delete such a good post regardless of your "rules" is an injustice and abuse of power. Clearly we live in a world where no one can trust anyone, and that only further justifies the statements I made in my post. How much worse shall it get? Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnorton776 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot to respond to, but primarily I want to refer you to 2 of our core policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. The first says, in a nutshell, that since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, our information must be attributable to reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further details). The second goes hand-in-hand with verifiability, saying that we do not publish original thought, analysis, or synthesis. Your "post" consisted of a large amount of analysis, synthesis, and substantive claims, none of which were referenced to any sources (from your use of the word "post" above I can't help but get the impression that you may think Wikipedia is some kind of discussion forum; it's not, it's an encyclopedia). As to your question, "what If I am a credible source? Who are you or anyone to say that I'm not?" Being, "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", obviously anyone can add anything to Wikipedia and claim to be an expert on this or that. The way we distinguish credible from non-credible sources is by requiring citations to where that source has been published. Are you a film analyst? Have your opinions and analyses been published in scholarly journals, books, reputable online publications, and the like? If so, then surely you can provide citations to your published material so that readers can verify that the analyses being presented in the article are those of a critic or expert in the field of film analysis, not just some random internet person. Your edits are preserved in the page history; if you would like to provide citations and references to back up their claims then you are welcome to do so. But if you can't or won't, then the information cannot stay. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

J04n(talk page) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, 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/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

An AfD with your name on it (literally)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-zilla (suffix) :) J04n(talk page) 01:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh, thanks for the am chuckle. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wording on T3

I think the new way you put it is fine and a good compromise, but in the future I would suggest keeping such issues on the talk page until a consensus is reached. Your reasoning is sound, but I feel that taking it upon yourself to make these edits invalidates the neutrality of the article (since the edit conflict was between the two of us). We've both been working diligently on this and related articles for some time, and I believe I've thanked you for your work in the past, and it's unfair of you to take control away from other editors such as myself. --Williamsburgland (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean for it to come off that way. My most recent edit was concerned with sentence structure rather than our disagreement over "prediction". It just didn't read well to me, and I thought rearranging the wording without changing the disputed term wouldn't be problematic. I can see how it may have been jumping the gun, though. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries; it really is just a minor concern. I just think airing these things in open forum is the best way to go. Again, I'm happy with the way you've worded it now and solves the issue, I think.--Williamsburgland (talk) 09:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Christmas-with-the-Vandals-Cover.jpg

Hello, IllaZilla. You have new messages at File talk:Christmas-with-the-Vandals-Cover.jpg.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga discography

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Lady Gaga discography#Other appearance concerning the appropriateness of including Lady Gaga's credits as songwriter on tracks performed by other vocalists. As you have previously weighed in on the "discogrophy" vs. "songography" question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style, I would like to invite you to contribute your opinion to the debate. --Peter Farago (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Crash Love reviews

About this [1] edit of yours: that's what I thought at first too which is why I put it back but then I actually read the review and removed it again. It's not a "negative review", it's plain trolling. Any fool with a domain name can write "reviews" these days, whether or not it's legit is debatable. And what about this? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Professional_reviews --BrightBlackHeaven (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The review that is continually removed by vandals is the Drowned in Sound one. Drowned in Sound passes WP:RS as a "third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites as an acceptable source for album reviews. It is not just "some fool with a domain name", it is a professional music webzine that has won several awards and received recognition within the field. The vandals are only removing it because it scored the album poorly (3 out of 10), and they can't bear the reality that someone gave a poor score to their precious AFI album. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandals? Vandals don't try to fix things (as they best see fit). I didn't know about the website and its ~reputation, I based my assumption on the way the review was written. I don't mind negative reviews, I mind crappy reviews. (But I guess it's acceptable then.) And, TY for your last edit on the article, looks great. -----BrightBlackdon'teditmysignatureHeaven (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

By "vandals" I'm referring to the anonymous IP editors who've removed the Drowned in Sound review from the infobox numerous times without leaving any explanation for why they're removing it. If you glance through the article's history you'll see that 70.83.141.191 (talk · contribs) has done this at least 5 times over the last 3 months. Since they've left no edit summaries, I can only assume that the reason they keep removing the review is because it gave the album a poor score. You can't remove a valid source simply because it scored the album poorly, as this is biased. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Pettibon

Hey, I recently added Mr. Pettibon to the list of SubGenii, under Categories. I'm kind of new to Wikipedia, so I was unsure how to cite it(?) Anyway, I guess you changed it, so I'll assume you know what you are doing as I am unsure.Atthom (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's only appropriate to add the category if his status as a "Subgenii" is mentioned somewhere in the article, with an accompanying reference to a reliable source. This is part of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more info on how to provide citations. If you have trouble, and the source is available online, you can post the link on the article's talk page at Talk:Raymond Pettibon and I'll help you turn it into a citation. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Emo" article

Recently you deleted the small edit I made to the emo article, in which I refered to a large proportion of mid-90s emo bands as being "midwest emo". It was deleted because I didn't apply sources, which is fair enough. I have a Rock Sound article and a Kerrang article which uses the tag, the American magazine Alternative Press has apparently used the term to desribe Christie Front Drive. I think I remember seeing the term used in the "Nothing Feels Good" book which gets referenced a lot, I've read it but don't have it. The term is also used on the internet, but more by fans than big music publications. The reason for this is because quite simply, the scene was not that big at all. Emo now is so much bigger because of the likes of these modern bands that get tagged emo (like Fall Out Boy etc) and even though the first wave of emo bands (the ones playing hardcore punk) don't get much coverage, midwest emo bands got/get even less! The other thing is modern bands like Joie De Vivre and Empire! Empire! (on the Count Your Lucky Stars lebel) use the term because their music is influenced by Mineral etc, and not at all by any hardcore punk bands. Poiuytre (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If you've got the sources, then it should be fairly easy to cite them. However, I think it's generalizing to say that "The term for this new sound was called 'midwest emo'". There's really no way to prove that without citing a source that specifically says so, and it'd have to be from that time period to prove your claim that this is what it was called at the time. I wouldn't be surprised if some sources use the term in retrospect, but that doesn't really illustrate that "there was this specific wave of bands, and it was called 'midwest emo'", any more that you could prove that the first wave was called 'DC emo'". --IllaZilla (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you read "emo" under the heading "genre"?--Loverdrive (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Try actually reading the review. Last sentence: "this is as earnest as an emo record gets." I'm sorry, but you can't simply revert it on the same grounds as you did the previous source. If you want to debate the merits of this new source, you need to do so on the talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Indent of navbox template

Re this edit: good move. Besides the troubles which you experienced, indenting a navbox template will cause the whole of the page after that point to be indented - including section headings, further navboxes and I think the category box; lines deliberately indented will get a further indent on top. I did find such behaviour in a talk page archive just last week, but cannot remeber which, otherwise I'd point you at it. I know of no method to restore the indent level, other than to remove the indent which precedes the navbox template. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Aliens vs Predator Classic 2000

[2] Is this a better source? --Doomzaber (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Much better in that it directly supports the details in the article text, but a secondary source would be even better. Thanks for finding it. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Musical artist logos licensed under Creative Commons

I have nominated Category:Musical artist logos licensed under Creative Commons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Prezbo (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Gorgeous Frankenstein bio deletions

Hello! Not sure what I added that irked you, but the link added went to the new singer's website for his former band, and everything else was factually acurate. Couldn't you have just deleted an adjective or two, if you found it to be too, I guess, subjectively descriptive? You just delete everything? No wonder everything's so not-up-to-date here. If you wouldn't mind, though, telling me which and what was not good about what I posted, it would be helpful, as I would like to contribute. Too many links? Musicians at events where the band on the page appeared? If you could tell me something useful about what not to do, I'd very much appreciate it. The page looks much better as it was, current as of a few years ago. You should leave it like that. They've been playing new songs, with the new singer I mentioned that you deleted - should I have named them? Would that warrant inclusion? Sorry I posted - Thanks for deleting me! Lesson learned. <smack> Feel free to delete this too. Deadimp (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

To be specific: There's no need for a link to the website of the singer's former band, as the article isn't about that band, it's about Gorgeous Frankenstein (see WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINK for more guidance on external links within Wikipedia articles). Also not sure why you put all those ™s in there; we don't use such markings in encyclopedia text. A lot of your language was flowery & made the whole thing sound like an advertisement ("Since the first album's successful tours", "the reputable Dr. Chud", "brutal", "ferocious", "the impending second Gorgeous Frankenstein album looks set to kill, well, everyone"). That's just not appropriate language for an encyclopedia. See WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK for some more guidance there. As to your question of why I simply reverted you rather than trying to clean it up myself, the primary problem was that you didn't cite any sources for any of the material you added, so there was no way for me to verify which parts of it were factual and which you may have been embellishing in order to tout up the band. Verifiability is one of our core policies (see WP:V and WP:RS for explanations), and since you didn't provide any sources for the information I had little recourse but to revert. Bottom line: your whole edit read like an advertisement, and if you are willing to rewrite it to sound more neutral (more like an encyclopedia and less like an ad) and to cite a reliable source or two for the content you're adding, I'll be happy to help tweak it in any way I can to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. I'll leave a welcome message on your talk page with some helpful links on how to get started contributing here. I'm glad you're interested in editing; we can always use more wiling contributors! I'd just like you to know why I reverted your edits and offer you some help on how to edit better. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I did all of those things - guess I have a lot to learn, here. I'll read through everything you suggested, very carefully, and try to do a (hopefully much) better job in the future. I appreciate your taking the time to respond, and apologize for my idiocy. Deadimp (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No apology necessary. I sometimes come off terse in my replies and edit summaries, so I can understand why my reverting you would have been upsetting. I'll take a look at what you've done and see what I can do to help. Thanks for taking another shot at it! Every editor here was new once, and it takes time to learn the ins & outs of Wikipedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, IllaZilla. You have new messages at Talk:Jason Freese.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have replied. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 19:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied again. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 15:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page, so you don't need to leave talkback messages anymore. Thanks for letting me know, though. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Anti-folk

I've reversed you on the genre wipes on Adam Green, Toby Goodshank, Kimya Dawson, Diane Cluck and Herman Dune. They are all bonafide members of the Antifolk community, pretty well defined here in NYC as the community of acts that played at Lach's nights at Sidewalk Cafe etc. The former two's membership in The Moldy Peaches is certainly sufficient. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but without reliable sources to back up that claim, there's no verification for that genre. Add a couple of sources and the problem is solved. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at the The Moldy Peaches article? "Leading proponents". Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the Moldy Peaches article has a source for "anti-folk" does not mean that the members' solo careers are also "anti-folk". If you're basing their classification on their former membership in the Peaches, then it should be fairly easy to source, as you've got the source right there in the Peaches article. Instead of simply reverting, fix the problem of sourcing. Each article needs its own references. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You are IMHO being over pedantic, a musician's genre's don't disappear simply because they move on, they just get added to. And in these cases they are all still active within the community. But I will attempt to satisfy your wishes over the weekend. If you are not satisfied you can redo your edits. Does that work for you? Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'll check my edit summaries, you'll see that one of the reasons I removed it from some of these articles is that the term "anti-folk" doesn't even appear anywhere in the article bodies. They can't very well belong to a category of anti-folk artists if the article doesn't say anywhere that they're anti-folk. Nor should it be in the infobox if it's not in the article body, as the infobox is a summation of details from the article. If you want to improve these articles a bit and find some supporting sources, that'll eliminate the problem, so by all means do so. I'll leave you to it. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Marty Munsch

If you really want to have a go at an almost entirely unsourced article, try Marty Munsch - the Phil Spector of Punk! I, and many others, have tried and given up! Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh my, that does look like a tough one. Definitely a challenge. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Move

Main article What I meant is that the main article for "covers" is at "cover version". That is the rationale for my move. Excuse me for the ambiguity. If you want to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Alien 3 reversion

Maybe I'm just misreading the page, but why was my edit reverted? What's shown in the movie is thermal shock. It's completely relevant and should be linked. --Kevin W. 23:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:EGG; the goal is to keep piped links clear and contextual, so that a reader isn't surprised by where they end up when they click on it. Piped links shouldn't be used as easter eggs. A better way to link it might be to re-word the sentence to something like: "The Alien, covered in molten metal, escapes the mold and is killed by Ripley when she turns on fire sprinklers and sprays the beast with water, causing its exoskeleton shatter due to thermal shock." Now it's very clear to a reader when they click on "thermal shock" where they should be ending up: at an article explaining the principal of thermal shock. Whereas a reader clicking on the phrase "cool rapidly and shatter" would have no intuitive idea where they might be ending up. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Last of the American Girls

I noticed that you are constantly repeating that "Last of the American Girls" has unsourced material to be accepted into Wikipedia as a single. I was just wondering if you could check out these links and then tell me why they are not reliable: [3] & [4] One is an article from Green Day's main website and the other is a link to the full article from the main website about it being a single. --72.152.71.223 (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It would have helped if anyone had bothered to provide those sources to begin with. To my recollection, at the time of my edits, no one had bothered to cite a single source saying that the song would be a single. Regardless, it does not yet pass WP:NSONGS as the video has not even yet been filmed and no details about a future single have been announced (release date, cover art, other tracks, etc.). Wikipedia is not the news and has no deadline, so there is no need for us to be "first on the scene" with these "omg next single ftw!" type of edits. We can wait until there is actually something to write about that merits encyclopedic coverage. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. Sure fine with me --74.232.63.69 (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic

Hi there. You reverted my as the Eternal Cowboy rating edit from Sputnikmusic because "sputnikmusic doesn't use star ratings." However, the Sputnikmusic wikipedia page indicates otherwise: "Sputnikmusic operates a simple 5-star rating system, starting at 1, that allows .5 intervals." I see the Sputnikmusic site is actually a bit conflicted showing both stars and unit-less numeric values. Is either more correct and is it worth standardizing? Slingstone (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the review itself, I see no stars anywhere. Merely a number, "4.0". Generally we present the score the same way it is displayed in the source. This one is displayed as a number, so we present it as a number. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'm going to edit the Sputnikmusic wikipedia page to say 'points' instead of 'stars,' then. Slingstone (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Descendents EPs

I have nominated Category:Descendents EPs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Descendents albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Terminator Salvation Plot Summary

Hi there. I saw that you reverted my edit of the plot tag. The GA review for this article was, apparently, before my time but I still believe the plot summary needs work in terms of word usage. It has, in my view, some unnecessary additional words and overly verbose phrasing and would like to make an effort to bring it down a hair, unless you feel I should not bother at all. As I'm still new to larger edits and movie summaries have become my obsession, I would like to hear any thoughts you have on the matter. I have read the various WP:PLOT related articles on plot summaries in general and the like. But I always welcome any additional resources from ore experienced editors. Thanks in advance. Millahnna (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to take a whack at it. I personally don't feel that it's too long in comparison to the rest of the article, or most of the articles in Category:GA-Class film articles and Category:FA-Class film articles (certainly not long enough that it warrants a {{plot}} tag), but I admit my opinion is probably biased because I wrote the summary. That said, I'm always in favor of trimming down plot summaries where they can be, and in fact I went through all of the Terminator film articles a while back doing just that. So if you feel you can "bring it down a hair" by tightening up the phrasing, etc. then by all means please do. Happy editing! --IllaZilla (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Alkaline Trio EPs

I have nominated Category:Alkaline Trio EPs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Alkaline Trio extended plays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:The Bronx EPs

I have nominated Category:The Bronx EPs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:The Bronx extended plays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Descendents EPs

I have nominated Category:Descendents EPs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Descendents extended plays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Misfits EPs

I have nominated Category:Misfits EPs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Misfits extended plays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Unwritten Law EPs

I have nominated Category:Unwritten Law EPs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Unwritten Law extended plays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

suggestions needed

hello IllaZilla - i hope it's okay to barge in with a request. we've had some contact in some music-related discussions, so i was hoping you might be able to point me in the right direction for appropriate places to post this "eyes-needed" type announcement: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#a_Pop-music_question_in_need_of_input. i'll keep my eye on your talk page for a reply ... thanks! Sssoul (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
update: i've added it to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music genres page as well, and maybe that will do – thanks! Sssoul (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all; feel free to ask for input anytime! I recommend dropping a line at WP:MUSICIANS. Seems like something they'd be interested in. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you kindly - i'll try posting it over there as well. swing on! Sssoul (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

U.S. band moves

Re moves like this one: WP:NCM uses "U.S. band" in its example. Was there a separate discussion that led to these moves? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This probably needs to be discussed somewhere. "U.S." is not a nationality. People from the United States are called Americans. Just as you wouldn't dab a group as an "Australia band", you'd use "Australian band". And in fact the example at NCM is outdated, as I moved X (U.S. band) to X (American band) at about the same time. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd use "Australian band" and "German band", but "U.S. band" and "UK band" work too. The word in front of "band" isn't required to be a nationality. I'd also use "Finnish band", not "Finn band", even though people from Finland are called Finns. (And there's some dispute as to whether "American" is a nationality, but that's not why I asked here. See Talk:American, Talk:America if you want to dig in there.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"U.S. band" and "U.K. band" are terrible grammar, as "U.S." and "U.K." are not demonyms. "Canadian", "Finnish", etc. are demonyms. In a sentence you would say "X is an American punk rock band" or "X is a punk rock band from the United States", not "X is a U.S. punk rock band". When we use nationality as a disambiguator in the form "(xxxx band)", we use the demonym of that nation. The common practice seems to be to use demonyms for every country except the United States and United Kingdom, merely because their demonyms (American, British) do not closely match the name of the country (as Finnish does for Finland and Canadian for Canada). This is inconsistent and unnecessary. Debates over "America / American" notwithstanding, the Oxford English Dictionary uses "American" as the demonym for citizens of the United States (see Names for U.S. citizens). Being the English Wikipedia, we should follow this convention. There should be no confusion between this and other nationalities of the Americas, as the other nations have their own unique demonyms (Canadian, Mexican, Panamanian, etc.). In the case of the United Kingdom, "British" should be used (see British people) unless the more specific region is known (Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh, etc., as in "The Sex Pistols are an English punk rock band" or "Stiff Little Fingers are a Northern Irish punk rock band"). --IllaZilla (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about the grammar. U.S. band is no worse than U.S. company or U.S. Army. In any event, please discuss the proposed change on the Wikipedia talk page before implementing it, since it is disputed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Alkaline Trio - This Addiction single cover.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Alkaline Trio - This Addiction single cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Government Issue

Hi Zilla,

I noticed that you deproded Government Issue, saying that you had several sources for the topic on hand. Would you mind placing them on the article in a "References" section? You can take your time with adding the information from the sources into the article, but I'd really appreicate it if you'd add the citation information for them soon. I just want to make sure there is a sufficient number of independent, reliable sources as I have been unable to find them myself.

Thanks,

Neelix (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. My Masters thesis topic is punk rock, so I've got a lot lying around. Specific to Government Issue, I know they're covered in American Hardcore: A Tribal History (which I recently finished), and probably its accompanying film too. Allmusic has a decent bio. I'll see what I can do for it later on. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zilla,

Thanks for adding some citations to the Government Issue article. Do you know of any more independent, reliable sources which could be included? I like the sources you've added, but I'm still concerned about the band's notability.

Neelix (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm certain I can find more. I'll take a second look at it. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zilla,

You're doing some great work on the Government Issue article; I look forward to seeing what it becomes. In any case, you've convinced me of the band's notability.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me?

I don't have a real WIKIPEDIA account yet but I'm known as Metroid101 on others I created an Alien Series Page on the www.Metroid.wikia.com but It has been nominated for deletion because of Lack of information... you being an Aliens Fan can you help me?

http://metroid.wikia.com/wiki/Alien_Series

is the page... (173.32.186.122 (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC))

Sorry, I don't have an account on Wikia; I'm only really familiar with Wikipedia and I prefer to stick to it. As I mentioned in my message on your talk page, I think that drawing any comparisons between Metroid and the Alien series is really just original research. Frankly, it's all coincidental. Other than the fact that both have female heroines who fight aliens in the future, there are very few connections (well, I believe the Ridley monster was named after Ridley Scott, but I can't find a reliable source to back that up). Most of the "connections" you seem to be drawing between the two franchises feel awfully forced and basically coincidental. Like "featured antagonistic computer: see Mother Brain": firstly, there was no antagonistic computer in Alien; the "mother" computer merely relayed messages and followed commands. Secondly, Mother Brain isn't a computer, it's literally a huge living brain. And your "Escape = usually have a Xenomorph in the way"...aren't there pretty much always enemies between the player and the "escape" in video games? And in action movies too? Remember that correlation does not imply causation, which is to say that just because there seem to be some parallels between Alien and Metroid does not mean that the two actually have anything to do with each other. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Alien (franchise): prequel film

The art director of the first Alien film stated that the prequel will be shot in 3D. I reworded the original addition to the article (plus minor changes in the paragraph), but I'm not sure if the information should be in the article until it is verified by someone actually involved in the production, which the originator Roger Christian is obviously not. —85.178.66.138 (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll have a look at the source. It'll basically come down to whether it passes WP:RS. As you can imagine there's typically a lot of speculative info out there on the internet when it comes to possible future films. It therefore becomes key for us to make sure all the sources presented are truly reliable in relation to the film. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Bolding

Where do you want to discuss this? I suggest MOS:FILM. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 05:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good place, since that's where WP:FILMCAST is. I might not be able to get into it until tomorrow though. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Bolding_of_cast_sections BOVINEBOY2008 :) 06:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You said in the discussion, "I find it works well when the cast section is formatted as a bulleted list that includes not just simply names, but a decent amount of information on the casting and actors' background." Predator 2 and Alien Resurrection do not have this so-called "amount of information" in their cast sections. What is your excuse for having bold formatting there? Nothing stands out because everything is clustered together, as I try to follow your logic. Erik (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No "excuse" is needed, merely a reason: They should have a decent amount of background information, and they easily could, and I daresay they will as they are improved. Work in progress, remember? Casting details are going to have to be added as these articles move up the quality scale. I could pop in my Alien Resurrection supplemental disc right now and add significant detail to the cast section in that article, and may do just that. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you really believe what you say, please remove the bold formatting until you add the information about the actors and their roles. Please also consider presenting the information as prose instead; what we have done in the past is a weird amalgamation of lists and paragraphs. I'm brainstorming behind the scenes of a different way to approach cast sections. For example, we could list the major credits, then have succeeding paragraphs. I've never liked how everything is left-aligned with bullet lists, though, so I used a certain kind of table. See Apt Pupil (film)#Cast. What do you think? Erik (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Predator 2 and bolding

Just to let you know, you've passed your limit for reverts in a 24 hour period. You've already reverted 4 times since this time yesterday. Sometimes, in cases where no content (adding or subtracting) is actually changing on the page, it's best to just leave it be until the discussion has ended. Regardless of what version came first, there's no need getting blocked for 24 hours for something trivial in nature. If your side of the argument prevails, then it's as easy as putting the bolding back. Otherwise, you're treading into dangerous waters if you keep reverting, reverting, reverting, at the drop of a hat. If you get blocked, then it'll be kind of hard to voice your opinion in any discussion until the block expires. Just FYI.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In almost 4 years I have never once been blocked, and would hate to be now, so I'm willing to lay off of it until the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines‎#Bolding of cast sections reaches a consensus. That said, I consider what Erik has been doing to not be in good faith (attempting to enforce his preferred style through revert-warring after having been reverted the first time, even in the midst of a discussion about the issue in which he is a participant), and I hope that someones see fit to give him a similar warning. Bovineboy2008 had the courtesy to stop reverting and initiate discussion, whereas Erik has insited on pushing his change even while discussion is ongoing (even to the point of asking others to make the edit on his behalf). I have absolutely no problem following the consensus if it winds up being against bolding, and I agree with you that in the end it's a trivial issue, but Erik's edits have really been rubbing me the wrong way and making my "undo" trigger finger itchy. I'll be sure to keep cool and wait out the consensus. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No Use For a Name

Hello, I saw that you reverted my edits. Not sure where you got your information from, but I was there at the beginning with No Use For A Name, and I remember the morning following the first practice when the members started a new band in Rory Koff's dad's apartment in Sunnyvale, California; within a couple of practices I became the second singer. The original members were Rory Koff, Chris Dodge, Steve Papoutsis, and John Meyer. John Meyer left the band, then Chris Dodge left the band to play with other bands, and then Doug Judd left soon after. We recruited Tony Sly as the new guitarist, and he became also the singer after I left. Hope this helps. Regards, Ramon Gras

By the way, I also have some old practice video of NUFAN with Tony on guitar, Steve on Bass, Rory on Drums, and me on vocals, which I might make available to interested people in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.172.81 (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I can appreciate your desire to make the article more accurate, but information of this kind must be verifiable throuhg reliable sources. If you could provide a source, such as a magazine article, interview, or biography that goes into detail about the formative stages of the band, then I'd be glad to help you cite that source in the article in order to support your changes. Writing about the formative stages of bands often becomes difficult (I've been doing so on Wikipedia for a while) because early practice lineups and things like that aren't usually covered by reliable sources. Most biographies don't go back further than a group's first recording lineup. But if you've got the sources, I'm happy to help you include them. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

IP genre warrior

Hey Zilla, because of the high server lag I can't rightly see what this trash metal fan is up to, and how much you have already reversed. After checking a couple of their edits I just started rolling them back, same way I did the other day: the ones I checked had no references or justification. I see that you have done a number of them also; you may have noticed that I placed a level 4 warning right under your long note to them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed, and moved the warning up so that it's beneath the level 1 one I gave him a few minutes prior. It looks like you started rolling him back from the top of his contribs list, and I started from the bottom, so between us it appears we got them all (although the database server lag is atrocious for me right now...4,249 seconds! So there may be more recents edits I haven't seen). Every one appeared to be POV-based changes to either genres or "influenced by" bands, and some removal of referenced material. A clear case of rampant POV-editing, all too common in heavy metal-related articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:GREEN DAY

Hi, I've seen you frequently around the article Green Day and other related articles. Please consider joining the Green Day WikiProject, an effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding Green Day. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks that you can help with. Thank you for your time.

Regards, Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 14:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Descendents

Yes I've now realized that the first reference was completely unreliable and I have replaced it. I understand that just because you're Anti-Drug does not make you Straight Edge but i'm just talking values here and have revised and edit my addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blink44182 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

See my repsonse on your talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've revised my edit, and when you had reverted it I had been saving changed and not previewing it, I had been editing a copy/paste. Also the fact that he's never done any drugs is a fact of the values i'm talking about. I do not claim that Descendents are Straight Edge nor any of the members, i'm simply stating that they are all sober and straight minded which is a fundamental part of the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blink44182 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, please carry this conversation on your talk page where it originated. I am not going to hold a conversation across 2 separate talk pages. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

I in fact do have that original picture of Kevin Seconds being that I personally know Troy Mowat of 7 Seconds. Copies are out there, being that I found that image of Kevin Seconds, but since I do hold the original picture I hope I am not violating any copyright. As for the others of Steve, I am not quite positive where they originated. I'm trying to clean up the page and give it some more structure. I understand your concern of the pictures and any violation. Feel free to report what you need. I also hope to add some more structure to the Milo and Descendents page. Maybe you can help with the Descendents page as it seems there are alot of citations needed and word cleanup. Blink44182 (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're "not quite positive where they originated", then you don't have the right to release them under a free license. Holding the original image and holding the copyright on it are not necessarily the same thing. I do appreciate your efforts to improve the articles, and I'm happy to help give you pointers in the right direction. Unfortunately I can't access Commons from the computer I'm on right now, but once I get home I'll log in there and see about verifying the copyrights on the images. For now, though, I recommend that you don't upload any photos that you didn't take yourself, as these are the only ones that you can legitimately claim to hold the copyright to and therefore have the liberty to release under a free license. I plan to revisit the Descendents article and give it a thorough rewrite at some point in the near future; I was well into the album and single articles (the only one I haven't rewritten yet is Cool to Be You), but I got sidetracked by other projects. I should redirect my attention to it (and probably will, as soon as I'm done rewriting Big Black). Happy editing! --IllaZilla (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd really love to see the Descendents page get an overhaul. I'm curious though, how can I add images (like the one i'm sure you will see I have added to Milo's page) with a copyright? Since I edited the picture I guess I have some right, but it will probably be deleted. How can I obtain the right to put it up? And also for the addition I made to Milo's page and Descendents that you reverted because I didn't have a reference, how can you just go though and 'give it a thorough re-write' and post an article about Cool To be You and such without a reference? There is alot on both of those pages that don't have references. I feel like you just want to have your way regardless of what I post because of the heads we were butting. I'm just curious because you can't deny me on how the Descendents and Milo took a different approach into the scene and the songs they wrote. I understand the whole values toward 'Straight Edge' connection thing I was making (which I realize I sounded like an idiot now) but just for going into detail on an already unreferenced article and to have it be reverted seemed to me like you were just reverting just to revert my edit. Anyway I would really like to fix the pages up with you. RobertBlink44182 (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I plan to use plenty of references when I rewrite the articles. I generally don't attempt a rewrite unless I have lots of sources on hand. Check out any of the Descendents album articles (such as Milo Goes to College, Everything Sucks (Descendents album), or Descendents discography) to see how many sources I used and how I cited them in the article. There's already an article about Cool to Be You, it just isn't very well-written and doesn't give much detail about the album's background or critical reception. I plan to round up some sources and fix that. You can also check out the work I'm doing right now on Big Black. The point is you've got to have the sources first, and base your writing on what they say. You can't make your claims first, then try to find sources that back them up. That's just backwards writing.

As for the images: again, simply editing them doesn't give you any rights to them, even partially. Unless you created the image yourself (in other words, you took the picture) or can otherwise prove that you hold the copyright on them, then you can't release them under a free license. Doing so is considered fraud and copyright infringement. If you found the image on a website, such as the band's site or elsewhere on the internet, then chances are it's non-free, and that means that in order for it to be used on Wikipedia it has to pass the non-free content criteria. For living persons, non-free images that merely show what they look like are almost always not allowed. I don't mean to sound harsh, it's just that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. If it wasn't me telling you this, it'd be someone else; there are many editors who police recent uploads and remove non-free content. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So in order to obtain permission for use I must contact the copyright holder (Like contacting descendents.com, etc)? I added a template for an info box on both the Descendents and Milo page. I understand about the images and deletion and such, it's completely understandable. I will try to contact Epitaph Records (where I got the picture of Descendents and the cropped one of Milo) and see if they will allow me and give me explicit permission for use on Wiki. As far as the editing goes, I have a question. For the Straight Edge page, my edit is being reverted repetedly (breaking the 3RR) on the Hardline subject. Now I realize the Promiscuity battle I will not win but I am not stating that in Straight Edge, only in the Hardline aspect. Please take a look at my edit and tell me what you think. I added the references to back it up and since it's stating values of Hardline I belive it's approppriate to keep the addition. Blink44182 (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look & see what I can contribute. For the images, if you can obtain written permission from either the band or record label to release one of their photos under a free license, then that'll be fine, but record labels typically won't do this because these are promotional photos that they're using to market their artists. Also, Wikipedia doesn't accept "only for use on Wikipedia"-type permission, because our articles are licensed as GFDL and may be reprinted or re-distributed by others. I'm not really familiar with how to obtain permission for copyrighted images, so I recommend checking out Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Basically you'll have to email the copyright holder and obtain written permission, then submit that to WP for review. If you have further questions, you can ask on that page's talk page and more knowledgeable editors should be able to help you. The infoboxes is a good addition to the Aukerman article; it needed one. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

New Year's Day

I have updated my edit on NYD with sources that are valid. Please do not revert it back. --Boknoykatok (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC).

Screenshot reversal

Hi. About the Alien screenshot, I was just going by this. Personally to me it seems it's not a very good image period. —Mike Allen 01:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not? It illustrates the set design and construction, which are the subject of the accompanying paragraph. The image was previously reduced in size to meet WP:NFCC, and the previous versions were deleted. Leonard^Bloom (talk · contribs) was the one who reduced it to its current size, after a OKBot (talk · contribs) tagged it for reduction. All of the screenshots in the article are of identical size. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't really tell what it is. It's too dark and at a bad angle. Apparently others shared the same feelings as I since it's on the list I pointed out, which said it may need to increased as it was difficult to tell what it is. Though increasing it didn't do any justice either. —Mike Allen 02:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the film? The whole scene is dark. As for the angle, that's the angle at which the scene is shot, and the only one that affords a view of the whole set. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, not really interested. I just thought I would drop by and let you know the reason I did it and the editor that made the initial judgment is User:Nehrams2020. I left a note on the page so other editors wouldn't tamper with it. :-) Happy edits. —Mike Allen 02:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Genre warrior

Hey Illa, FYI, you reverted a genre warrior on Perseverance (Hatebreed album); I think the same editor is at it again with a slightly different IP. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No doubt in my mind it's the same dude. His edit summaries are identical. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Finch

I noticed that you are pretty much the guy that runs the emo artist list so here's Finch. NoremacDaGangsta (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't run it, though it is on my watchlist so I do keep an eye on it. There are others who do too. Thge article was semi-protected due to numerous anonymous editors vandalising it and/or adding/removing artists without reason. Since new and unregistered users are now unable to edit it, I try to keep a close eye on the talk page to respond to people's queries. I'll take a look at the link & see about adding Finch. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Against Me! Folk Punk

I was curious on your changing back of the genre Against Me! It seems to be agreed upon in the discussion page and there are articles that describe them as so. Here are some I am wondering if you believe them to be valid. [5] [6] [7] [8] --Blckhawk1234 (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Rhapsody.com is a retailer and not a reliable source for critical commentary, including genre designations.
• I'm not sure about The 217. Is it a magazine? Does it have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? It seems to consist largely of blogs.
• I don't see where the LiveDaily article describes Against Me! as "folk punk". It merely says that they're special guests on a Chuck Ragan tour.
• Punkbands.com seems OK.

My main problem is that the Against Me! article doesn't mention "folk punk" anywhere in the article itself. Not even once. The infobox is supposed to be a summary of details from the article. There shouldn't be anything in the infobox that isn't discussed in greater detail in the body of the article itself. You can't put "folk punk" in the infobox if the article body doesn't even mention "folk punk" in any way, shape, or form. My advice is to add a "Style" section to the article, write some well-referenced prose about Against Me!'s musical style, with citations to reliable sources. Then base the infobox contents on what that section says. As long as the infobox reflects the article body, and the sources therein, then the problem should be solved. The primary problem with this article is the fly-by editors who only care about the infobox and don't take the time to actually write any useful prose in the article itself. If someone would just put the effort into finding sources and writing a decent "Style" section, we could avoid these edit wars. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Alienprojectannouncement

Template:Alienprojectannouncement has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Policing the articles

It's like herding cats, isn't it? Good catch on [[embryos]]; I missed that one completely once I saw a videogame boss had somehow managed to sneak into the movie. Y'all have a good weekend! UncleBubba (Talk) 21:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You too! --IllaZilla (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Alien

I hadn't visited the page in awhile and was shocked by some of the changes in the lead section alone. I didn't even look at the rest of the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Predator 2

If you've seen the movie, which happens to be on right now, you'd know that the original paragraph was incorrect regarding the details of the first few scenes. Try checking the actual video before unilaterally reversing someone's edits. THANKS! 72.12.164.212 (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the movie, in fact I own it. The plot summary is not "incorrect regarding the details of the first few scenes", it is merely concise, which it's supposed to be because it's a summary, not a blow-by-blow recap. Your edits added unnecessary detail which merely bloats the summary. And the line "in a scene reminiscent of the Goetz NYC subway shooting" is entirely your own analysis and not supported by any sources. Please see WP:WAF and WP:NOR. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't, and your 'summary' seems a little bloated as it is, so it might as well be correct ... my view of that particular scene as a reference to the Goetz case was shared by Roger Ebert, perhaps you know him? see reference 4 ... anyways, you don't need to add stupid comments like about the new player being a predator ... well it sure ain't a little old lady ... DUH! How stupid would someone have to be to not understand that? to cite just one incorrect statement: the gang members didn't retreat inside the building because of harrigan's tactics ... they were trying to get in there all along or did you not hear that part? the car being in the way allowed the to do what they had wanted to do before he even showed up ... you may want to rewatch the movie and correct your mistakes ... or just simplify it into an actual summary ... you don't have to describe every single scene —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.164.212 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The Plot section is for a summary of the plot. Analyses and comparisons belong in a separate section. If the view is Ebert's, then it belongs in a Reception section alongside his opinions of the film. It does not belong in the Plot section. For what it's worth, I did not write the current plot summary and am not responsible for what it says. Nevertheless, your edits bloated it and the Goetz comparison did not belong there. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Smoking Popes discography

Do you really think it needs to be linked in BOTH sections? That's overlinking imo. I checked at least ten other FL discographies, and not a SINGLE ONE OF THEM included the album name or link the titles in the videography, so I think there's a really strong precedent not to link again in the videography. It's just linking for the sake of linking. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet we link the album titles in more than 1 section (in the album section and the singles section), the record labels (assuming the label's name appears in more than 1 section), the terms like "LP", "CD", etc., the names of the charts...we don't seem to care about "linking for the sake of linking" in any other area of the articles. And it's not just "linking for the sake of linking" anyway; we treat each section independent of the others, which is why we re-link things like album titles and labels. There's no compelling reason not to link the video titles, or give the names of the albums that the videos come from. Besides, every artist is different, and therefore no two discographies will be exactly the same. There is no guideline at WP:DISCOGS that discourages linking the titles of music videos or stating which albums they are from. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not link every single freaking word while you're at it? If it won't hurt anything... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, please. It's hardly that extreme. Linking the video titles creates merely 2 links to the song ariticles in the entire article body, and only 3 for two of the albums. This is hardly excessive, and these are not common terms. This is clearly not pushing the boundaries of WP:OVERLINK. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Control poster

Hi. In the UK it is standard practice to put quotes on theatrical release posters. See Harry Brown, Nowhere Boy, Slumdog Millionaire or Is Anybody There? for other examples. Cheers. Quentin X (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I was more thrown off by the shape. Are most movie posters in the UK longer horizontally than vertically? In the US they're nearly all vertically oriented. That's why I assumed it wasn't the correct image. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Album categorization

Thanks So:

With the Warped Tour albums, I'll take a look again; I guess I thought they were recorded on the tour. I now guess I was mistaken.

With The Smashing Pumpkins album as well as all other Peel Sessions albums, they have an inherited live album subcategorization as Category:Peel Sessions recordings is a Category:Live album series child. Albums recorded live in studio are still live, just in studio. There are plenty of "live" albums with more overdubs than a Peel Sessions live in studio album.

As far as EPs, there is Category:Live EPs, which I created, and have been adding as I've seen them. In Wikipedia, EPs are albums, as--e.g.--Category:Live EPs is a child of Category:Live albums.

As far as the criteria of an album having any live track being marked as a live album, that is not the case with me--probably only on those Warped Tour compilations. My general rubric is, "Would the average Joe Recordstore consider this a live album?" and roughly speaking if any album is more than two-thirds either live or studio, I leave categorize it with the majority. If it's in-between, I categorize it as both.

I hope that helps. Please post on my talk if you'd like to respond.

Unrelated: I'm having some keyboard problems, and may have to be offline for a little while. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Addendum Category:Music festival compilation albums is under Category:Live albums. That explains it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Not only for the help, but for posting to my talk and not flipping out. It's disturbing how frequently someone uses the Internet for rudeness--myself included. If you notice any other mistakes on my part, please let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A conversation that might interest you

Please see here Based on your feedback to my talk page, I thought this might be of interest to you. Please add any insight you have. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Easter egg link

How is "planets" not contextual? It is put into the context of "Set in the fictional Star Wars galaxy". How is it unexpected to show up at an article about the fictional planets in that fictional galaxy? --Torsodog^Talk 06:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the process of typing up an explanation of my edit on the article talk page. Please give me a few minutes & I hope to make it clear. Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It isn't a huge deal, as that list is basically useless anyways, but the link made sense to me. I'm going to head to bed now though, so I'll check out your explanation in the morning. Night --Torsodog^Talk 06:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Six Song Demo

I have nominated Six Song Demo, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Six Song Demo. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Last of the American Girls

I spent two hours creating and referencing that page and you just blanked it. What the hell? Signs point everywhere that its released or going to be released as a single. It doesn't matter if it has had airplay and has a music video, true, but it has a CD release for June 4th; there's cover art that is OFFICIAL. Look it up and research it yourself. And if you didn't like the article saying it was a single, you could've just made it as a song article, and changed the infobox and single information to song; not erase the whole page that I worked hard on. I don't think this is right, you're annoying a majority of people by pretending that this song isn't a single, and I think there should be an article for this song/single at least.--Crocodileman (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who recognizes that the song has not been released as a single, and that an official announcement about a future release date for a single has not been made. Whether this annoys a majority of people or not is of no relevance to me. Either it has been released as a single or it hasn't, and it hasn't. Even if it is, it needs to meet the criteria at WP:NSONGS, demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources that are independent of the subject. Fan sites, Youtube, and passing mentions on airplay listings are none of the above. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful Thieves

Maybe it's not notable but it's still a single, right? I get removing the article but why take it off the singles list? ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 08:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, does said significant coverage have to be about the song as a single, or (can it be) just the song, or its music video? I'm not really sure here. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 08:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I posted at Talk:Beautiful Thieves as to how I couldn't find any reliable sources confirming the song's release as a single. I'd be happy to continue the discussion there if you like. "Significant coverage" could certainly be about the song itself, which would include the music video and any released single. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Please do not revert edits that are intended to help readers. Wikipedia is a website reade by readers across the world. Over 30 countries use $. Clarifying the currency used within articles is only of benefit. The inclusion of such inclusion helps and does no harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.212.94 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume good faith on your part, however your edits are inconsistent with our manual of style. Please read the link I left on your talk page to WP:$ and follow its guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such it has style guidelines to promote consistency. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Back off

Please stop leaving unhelpful and rude meassages. Please stop reverting helpful edits. Please stop threatening people wishing to improve articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.239 (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can identify any of my comments as rude or unhelpful, I will gladly correct them, but I believe I have been perfectly civil. You are not improving the articles at all; rather, you are edit-warring and causing disruption. Since you refuse to discuss the issue in any kind of constructive matter, you leave me little choice but to respond with the appropriate warnigns. Be assured, I will take the issue through formal channels if your behavior continues in this manner. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been rude, you have made unhelful edits, you have not given appropriate reasons for reverting helpful changes .. who can it be damaging to clarify which of the 30+ dollar currencies? Wikipedia is read wordwide. The subjects themselves are not uUS specific. Please stop your edit war. Please stop damaging the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.239 (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not made a single uncivil comment, and I have given ample reason for reverting your unhelpful edits. All of these are American films produced and distributed by American companies, and the articles refer to no other currencies than the US dollar, so yes, the articles are in fact US-specific. As WP:$ instructs, we are able to simply use "$" as there is little to no potential confusion with any other countries. Even if there were potential confusion, we are instructed simply to use "United States dollar" on the first instance and simply "$" on all subsequent usages. By why bother repeating that which I have already told you? You clearly have no regard for Wikipedia's Manual of Style nor the logic behind it, thus attempting to explain my reasons to you is a futile exercise. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edits have been unhelpul. Your attitude has been impolite. Your reverts of very small but helpful clarifications have not helped articles, rather they have damaged them. As I have previously noted, and politely, over 30 countries use $ and the articles that have been modified are not specific to any one of these. As Wikipedia has a global readership I struggle to undertstand your reasons for insisting that '$' only is used .. this symbol does not denote any one currency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.239 (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Explain to me how there can be any confusion regarding Brüno. The rationale you previously gave was that it stars a British actor. Of course the United Kingdom does not use the dollar, it uses the Pound sterling, symbolized by a ₤, so there can be no potential confusion with the U.S. dollar, symbolized by a $. Cohen's nationality has nothing to do with it. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Many countries use '$', including countries that all these films were released in, and the cinema goers spent their own country's $ on ... inc. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, The United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.239 (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What countries the films are released in is irrelevant. By your logic every instance of "$" on Wikipedia would have to be replaced by a country-specific version, yet WP:$ explicitly tells us this is not so. The articles make no reference to any dollar other than the US one, so by what rationale do you assume that every instance of "$" needs to be replaced with "$US"? As I have pointeed out numerous times, in the case of potential confusion we would only need to state "United States dollar" once, and use "$" every subsequent time. Not a single one of these articles contains reference to more than 1 currency, ergo there is no need to state the country each time the currency symbol is used. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Your reasoning is wholly flawed. The articles are not speccific to any one country, and so which $ needs to be clarified. The article also reference earnings in a number of countries where $ are used, and so again which the $ needs to be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.239 (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

US companies count their revenue in US dollars. Warner Bros. does not report separate earnings for every currency used around the world; all of their earnings are reported in US dollars. The articles do not, in fact, reference any other currencies other than US dollars, as the sources from which they derive their figures (Box Office Mojo, mainly) state their figures in US dollars. I suggest that you continue this discussion at the ANI thread, which garners the most attention from other editors. It is clear that we disagree and are accomplishing nothing by running around in circles here. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It clear that your aim is not to help the readers of Wikipedia, and certainly not a global readership. It is possible that you may have another agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.239 (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my highly covert agenda to...write encyclopedia articles. Congratulations: after 4 years and over 35,000 edits, you finally caught me. Congratulations. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Then if there is not something more malign and insidious then you need to reconsider your global outlook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.239 (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoopsie--my bad

—Sorry about the image. I forgot to read the copyright tags——my bad. Thanks for leaving a message on my talk instead of just removing it! --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 19:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Timelines

Hi, IllaZilla. You have just deleted one timeline that I made and one I corrected, but you know, it took me much time and work to do them that it hurts. I don't think the one of misfits should be removed because the box you said that is intuitive is actually hard to read, specially for the visual people; and in the timeline that I made it's also easier to follow bandmates that rejoin. And the one from Slayer I think it should be kept as is easier to know which drummer was in each released studio album. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The intent wasn't to hurt your feelings, but I really don't see the use in these "timeline" graphs. Who was in a band at what times, and what releases each lineup played on, is not the type of information that lends itself to a graph format. It's much easier to see in the vertical table style, where the dates, releases, and members are all grouped nicely together. With the graph you have to look at the bar, then look at the x & y axes to find the names & dates, then look at the color key to determine the person's role...the whole thing is unnecessarily complex. Also the table format has the advantage of being able to name the releases, which the graph doesn't. A vertical black line for "studio release" doesn't really convey much to the reader. In Slayer's case there is really no need for a table or graph at all, as there have only ever been 7 people in the band, and the dates they were in the band are right there next to their names. The discography is directly below this, and it gives the date for each studio album, so it's rather simple to figure out who played on which albums just by looking at the dates. And of course the lineup changes and albums are explained in the History section, so anybody actually reading the article rather than just looking for a colorful chart should be able to find all that information anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I see, so you find complex the graphic timeline; ironically I find more complex the table than the graphic, I think it varies from person to person. You said it is simple to figure out who played in which albums by comparing the two lists, well that's bassically what the chart was for, to avoid you the problem of comparing; besides is not as simple as you said, because the dates are just given in years, and sometimes an album is released the same year that a bandmate was changed, so, by comparing the lists, you can't know which one actually was playing in that album.

And, obviously, the linup changes and albums are explained in the History section, but we still have the lists or boxes with the band members, I don't think that's a valid reason to remove the chart. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if I can explain the difference using an old revision of the Misfits article that has both the table and the timeline. Let's say I wanted to know the band's lineup in 1981:

• Using the table I simply look down the left column until I find 1981 (in this case part of the timespan "Oct. 1980–Apr. 1982"). Immediately next to that I see the lineup clearly listed: Glenn on vocals, Jerry on bass, Doyle on guitar, and Arthur Googy on drums.
• Using the timeline I have to find 1981 along the x axis, then I have to go upward and find the colored bars. Then I have to look at the y axis to see which names those bars correspond to. Finally I have to look at the colors of the bars and compare them to the Legend beneath the graph to figure out what positions those individuals occupied. This is much more complicated than using the table.

Now let's say I wanted to know who all the band's drummers were:

• Using the table I can scan down the right-hand column, and in each lineup I can see whose name is in the "drums" position.
• Using the timeline I have to look at the Legend to see which color corresponds to drums. Then I have to look along the graph to see where that color bar appears. Then I have to trace back to the y axis to see which names those bars correspond to. Again, more complicated than using the table format.

Now let's say I wanted to know exactly when Bobby Steele was in the band:

• Using the table I go down the right-hand column until I find Bobby Steele's name. Then in the left column I see that he was in the band from November 1979 to April 1980.
• Using the timeline I find Bobby Steele's name on the y axis, then I go along the graph until I find a colored bar. Then I go down to the x axis and I see that the bar spans 1979 to 1981. Not only are there more steps involved than using the table, but the information is less accurate because the x axis only displays years, not months. There's no way for me to intuitively figure out that he joined in November of '79 and left in April of '80.

Finally, let's say I wanted to know who played on Walk Among Us:

• Using the table I glance down the left column until I find Walk Among Us, then I look in the right column and there's the lineup.
• Using the timeline I can't find this information at all, because the releases aren't named. There's just a series of vertical black lines signifying "studio albums". I'd have to refer to the discography, which isn't even in the same article, and try to match up the dates in order to figure out which individuals played on that album. In this case the table format is clearly superior, as it provides information that the timeline can't.

You can see why I find the table format much more intuitive and useful than the timeline graph. Graphs are best for presenting purely numerical data, but that's not all we're trying to present here. We're trying to convey names, dates, positions, and releases played on. This is something that a graph just isn't the best format to present; a table is less complex and more precise. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, now I see what you mean about the table being more intuitive, I see that it has the many adventages as you said. I still think that the graph has some adventages like:

• It presents the information globally.
• It is colorful, making it easier for the visual people.
• If you want to find who all the band drummers were, it is actually more quickly if you have a graph, because with the table the drummers repeat themselves several times, while in the graphic you just have to read them once.
• I actually find harder to look when a band member was in the band with the table than the graph. In the table is not as simple as you described. You actually have to find the member from a list of many members that repeat themselves various times; when you find him you have to see where he leaves and now check the date of the square where he joined and then the date of the square where he leaves. Finally, it is harder to know if a band memeber rejoined the band later as you would have to check all the rest of the members repeating themselves in each square.

I don't mean to replace the table for the graph, I think that both of them could be kept, so that people can see the one they prefer the most. That would be a good solution, seeing that both formats have it's own advantages and disadvantages. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I'm not sure what you mean by "it presents the information globally". Whether it is colorful or not really has little bearing on its utility. The most convenient way to find the drummers is actually just to look at the list of members, since it lists their positions and the relevant dates right next to their names. I don't really see how it's easier to trace repeating members in the graph than it is in the table: you'd still have to follow their color bar, then trace down to the x axis to interpret the dates, and as I said the table can be more precise with the dates (even down to the day, if known) than the graph can. As for whether a member rejoined later, that is slightly more visible in the graph but it really doesn't provide any added utility. We're already presenting the same information (members, dates, positions, and releases played on) twice: Once in the ariticle proper (the list prose) and once in the table. There's really no need to present it a third way (by graph). Ultimately one could present this same information in a myriad of ways (list, table, graph, diagram, chart, etc.), but there's really no point to repeating the same information multiple times in different formats. We should stick to the 1 or 2 formats that convey the most information and have the most utility to the reader. Clearly in this case that's the list prose and the table. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What I meant by presenting the information globally is that you can look to all the information in just a quick look, while in the table it would take you some time, specially because the members are repeating themselves various times. This causes that the people can't see all the information until scrolling down the screen.

About the colors, I'll have to explain a little more. There are three main types of people: the auditive, the visual and the kinesthetic (see Learning styles). I am a visual person and have easier understainding when something colorful is presented, maybe you aren't a visual person and that's why you don't get the utility of the colors.

Now, I'll explain with an example to what I meant with the members repeating various times:

• In the table Glenn Danzig is written 11 times, it will take you some time to read just him that many times. Then you have to scroll up the screen and see the first date in which he joined and then scroll down and see the end date of the square he left.
• In the graph you just have to read him once, then see the approximate dates where he joined and leave.

You said: "As for whether a member rejoined later, that is slightly more visible in the graph but it really doesn't provide any added utility." Actually, it does for me, I can easily see when someone rejoined two or three times (not in this case of Misfits). While in a table I would have to read all the, let's say, the drummers, to know if one of them rejoined. But you have to concentrate more, to try to remember all the names you see and finally get which ones rejoined. And to further complicate the matter, the names repeat themselves serveral times, making it harder to remember all of them.

About the last part, I partially agree with you, that we can present the information in a myriad of ways. But I don't think that anyone would take the time to make diagrams or charts that doesn't bring any adventage. What I'm trying to say is that both, the table and the graph, have their own advantages and disadvantages, and that would be a good reason to leave them both; so that people can choose the one they prefer most, the more-precise tables or the synthesized graph. As an extra piece of information, I have seen various articles in Wikipedia that present the information in the three ways: table, graph and list.

PD: Sorry if my answer looks like a wall text and thanks for taking the time to answer me ;). Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely; I appreciate your well-explained responses. And many of my posts turn into walls of text too, so rest assured I read all of it :) I take your point about people with different learning styles, but I think that as an encyclopedia (which consists primarily of text), we don't necessarily need to present every kind of information in all the different styles. Sure, there are some things that are best explained using images (ie. photos of persons or objects). There are also some things that are best explained using tables and graphs (numerical data such as census results, temperature changes, etc.). And there are some things that are best explained using audio files (musical compositions, animal vocalizations, etc.). The type of information we're dealing with here is, in my opinion, best presented using prose. In fact with your Glenn Danzig example, if you wanted to see when he was in the band you don't even need a table or a chart...the dates of his tenure are right there below his name, next to his picture. So if that's the info you're looking for, the best place to find (and present) it is in the list itself. Ditto with Slayer's Dave Lombardo: if you want to know when he left and re-joined the band, the dates are right there next to his name. What we're really trying to display with the table/chart is: What were the lineups of the band at particular times? And who played on which releases? In my opinion a table is a superior format for displaying this information, for the reasons I've stated above. If you want to know when a particular person joined or left (or joined then left then re-joined), well, the ideal place to find that is in the list itself. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was just comparing the graph with the table, so I didn't consider the lists, but I think you're right. So, the only extra advantages that the graph has above both, the table and the list, is that it's useful for a quick check and for the learning styles I think. Still, I find hard to read the same names several times, luckily, I think I found the solution to this: To make a table without repeating names, to make this we could use a similar format to what I found in the French Wikipedia's article of Trust.

I have made a design of how it would look in my userpage. This table basically has all the advantages and information of the past table, but now includes colors, doesn't repeat names and it's even easier to find who memebers rejoined as only the first time they appear are wikilinked, the next times they appear in black letters. I hope you like this new solution I'm bringing and I'm open for changes to my new design ;). Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It can also be done this way: User:Benitoperezgaldos#Lineups 2. Its basically the same but you don't have to look the y-axis to check the instrument. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and a pretty award

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thanks so much for helping me decide what to do with Appeal to Reason promotional tour. I'm still new-ish and that was only the 2nd time I've nominated something for deletion. The first was a blatant copyvio speedy delete nom, though, so that doesn't count. Thanks for encouraging me to be bold and nominate the tour page for deletion! cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 15:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Terminator 3

I would appreciate it if you would take a few minutes to responds to some of my concerns atTalk:Terminator_3:_Rise_of_the_Machines#Production_companies. I am bit perplexed at why you are removing some of the production companies when sources have been provided. Betty Logan (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Help With Copyright Laws

Hey dude, sorry to bother you but you seem helpful and experienced. I'm just starting out here as an editor so forgive my ignorance. I'm just wondering if you can clarify exactly what I can or can't add as pictures for articles. I read the stuff on wiki-commons, but I don't really get what the licenses are. And also I see a lot of pictures of people or movie posters and it explicitly says that the image is protected by copyright laws and that it can't be reused. So basically, I'm wondering whether or not I can just Google image movie posters/album covers/celeb pictures, and then just save and upload them.

Sorry to be a bother! Happypatatoes (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, glad to help. For starters you should readWikipedia:Non-free content criteria and Wikipedia:Non-free content. Basically all media files (including images) fall into 1 of 2 categories:

• Free content is content that has been released under a free license. Such as: the creator has released it into the public domain or under a GFDL-compatible license (some things are automatically in the public domain either because they are not copyrightable, or the copyright has expired, they were first published in the US prior to modern copyright laws coming into effect, or they are works of the US federal government). Some examples of free content would be this, this, and the lyrics to "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star". Anything you find on Wikimedia Commons is pretty much guaranteed to be free content. You can pretty much use all the free content you want in an article.
• Non-free content is content that is copyrighted or otherwise subject to legal restrictions. This includes things like movie posters, album cover art, promotional photographs of bands or actors, sound clips of copyrighted music, etc. Wikipedia's goal is to provide free content, so we have a lot of restrictions on what kinds of non-free content are and aren't allowed. WP:NFCC pretty much covers these. In an article about a film, you're likely to see the film's poster used as the infobox image...likewise for an album article. This is allowed by our non-free content criteria because there are no possible free images that could be used as a replacement...pretty much every image associated with a film or album is copyrighted.

To answer your question about pictures of people, basically if the person is alive then a non-free image of them is not allowed, as it would be theoretically possible to go snap a picture of the person and upload it under a free license. Some non-free images of living persons are allowed, if they are necessary to understand the topic at hand and/or they depict an unrepeatable event. A good rule of thumb for living people is "if the non-free image is only being used to show what the person looks like, then it's not allowed". Now for deceased persons the case is a little different, as you can't go out and snap a new picture of them. But there are still some restrictions to consider, like: Do free images of this person exist that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose? Is a non-free image really necessary to understand the topic at hand?

As you can see, navigating the issues of copyright concerns on Wikipedia can be difficult. If you have specific images in mind that you'd like advice on, feel free to post the URLs here, and the article(s) that you want to use them in, and I'll be happy to give you some input. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So basically, the fact that a person is alive disallows you to use a Google image to represent them because you can technically get a free equivalent yourself? Wow that's harsh. Hmm, I just don't see why internet images that are so easy to just download or look at without paying or anything aren't already part of the public domain. I guess they are part of magazines and whatever. Oh well, I understand why this is a big concern, but it makes things difficult. Thanks for your time! Happypatatoes (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not how public domain works. The way US copyright works is basically: if you take a picture, you automatically hold the copyright on that picture. You can put it on the internet, but you as the creator are still the copyright holder (in the same way that an album's cover art may be all over the internet, but the copyright still belongs to the record label). So a great majority of those pictures you find through Google floating around there on the internet are in fact copyrighted. A picture only enters the public domain if (A) the copyright expires, (B) it's the work of the US federal government (most US gov't works are automatically public domain by law), or (C) the creator or copyright holder chooses to release it into the public domain. When you upload your own work to Wikimedia Commons (and some other websites like Flickr) you are given the option to release it under a free license so that it can be re-used by others. Public domain is one type of free license, the GFDL is another.

Think of it this way: If you had a website with lots of photographs that you'd taken, and someone downloaded all of your photos and put them on Wikipedia as public domain, how would you feel? They just stole all your work and put it in the public domain, ignoring your rights as the creator. Yes copyright does make it difficult to find images for use on Wikipedia, but you can see why we have to be concerned about it. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of External Links

I added four external links to the article about the movie Alien, that you removed. Personally, I think your argument that "there don't need to be" is weak; Wikipedia doesn't need to be either. But more objectively, do you also believe that the four links in the article about the movie Alien 3 should be removed? If you do, does this also apply to non-Alien movies, because if so, you're going to have to do a lot of deleting. What I mean is that regardless of any policies Wikipedia has, in practice by far most articles about movies end with "External links" sections that contain links - usually to the websites I added (Allmovie, the Internet Movie Database, Box Office Mojo and Rotten Tomatoes). It's at the end of the article; I'm pretty sure that there are more people would like those links there (or simply don't care) than people who don't want them there. You're registered and I'm just an 'IP address', and Deletionists always win on Wikipedia, so I'm not going to fight you over this. But I do want you to know my opinion. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles don't need external links. A culture has developed on Wikipedia where it's become common practice that certain websites are linked by default, without editors considering if they are actually necessary or useful. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and we have guidelines as to what is appropriate to add to an external links section. Any article worth its salt should be able to do without external links altogether; an External links section is a bonus, meant to link to informative content that, for one reason or another, can't be incorporated into the Wikipedia article. Allmovie doesn't contain anything useful that the article doesn't already have, certainly not in combination with IMDb...the majority of their additional useful content (full cast, crew, & production listing) overlaps, so there's certainly no need for both. Box Office Mojo and Rotten Tomatoes are already discussed and cited in the article itself, and the citations are linked, so having an additional hyperlink at the bottom of the article is just superfluous. There's no reason in the world that every film article should have external links to these 4 sites by default, regardless of whether that seems to be the common practice. That's treating Wikipedia like a link directory, which we're not. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

i'm sure you get off on all this...

I see that you've appointed yourself the policeman over all content having to do with Aliens and Predator on this site and are hiding behind the rules of wikipedia to promote your own biases. I'm a trained journalist who is very familiar with that sort of thing. For many journalists "objectivity" is just a cover, especially if a clear bias is demonstrated by the ultra-"objective" person. Often, they do protest too much. Because the rules of objectivity are always bent to the whims of the person applying them. None of us are truly objective. We choose which quotes to use, we choose sources to site, and which interpretations to give voice to. In the name of legal propriety, one can simply eliminate certain voices from the pages of history. You need to be weary of that and keep in mind the spirit beyond the letter of any law, and own up to your own biases.

Better than objectivity is the admission of bias and attempt at balance. For a balanced representation has a better chance of being an accurate one. Control your ego. --Fawad Siddiqui (or am I not allowed to post using my real name?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.146.39 (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my edits, it would help if you could be specific about which ones you're talking about (or even provide diffs), as I edit literally hundreds of articles. It would also help if you got to the point rather than using my talk page to write your manifesto on the paradox of objectivity. Based on your contributions I assume you're upset about this. I recommend you read Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Wikis such as avp.wikia.com cannot be cited as references, as they are not "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Wikis hosted on wikia.com can be edited by anyone, are self-published, and have a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. As for your opinions on objectivity, I recommend you read 3 of our core article policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research.

P.S. You are welcome to post using your real name if you so choose, however there are benefits and drawbacks to doing so. If you plan on contributing regularly to Wikipedia, it is recommended that you create an account. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It is beyond ironic that someone posting on a wiki is stating that wikis don't qualify as valid sources of information, or is trying to pigeon-hole them. A wiki is what the users of that wiki make it and can always change. The wiki is not being cited, by the way, just mentioned in the external links page, because that's what it is, an external link. The existence of a wiki on a subject is a valid piece of information. Informing people of the existence of such wikis for them to be involved with to help improve the information therein is a valid piece of information. And it's just ridiculous when you see that countless "GA standard" pages--a standard which you seem to covet so, apparently--that include such wikis in their external links section. If something is general practice on good pages on wikipedia, then that means most wikipedia users are interpreting things differently than you.

By the way, a review of the explanation of valid external links to be included can more than easily be interpreted to include such wikis. Your reading is very subjective.

I'm using your talk page to try to talk you. As numerous other people have apparently tried to do, too. Do you notice how many times you have the same argument?

There's a saying taught in improv acting classes: "If you look around the room and everyone you see is an @*#hole, then YOU'RE the #$@hole." Pardon the vulgarism, but the moral is good.

Also, please read over my explanation of why "Aliens vs. Predator" is the name of the franchise on the AVP page's discussion page. It's conclusive. As it was, you didn't even MENTION "Aliens vs. Predator" as one of the valid names. This isn't a matter of "ease", it's a matter of accuracy. Once upon time Adventures of Superman was titled "Adventure Comics," but it wouldn't be accurate for me to call it that today. --Fawad Siddiqui —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.211.125 (talk) 08:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, please read the core policies Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research. Wikis are, by their very nature, not "reliable, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". You claim that "The existence of a wiki on a subject is a valid piece of information"...by this logic, I could start my own wiki on any topic, write whatever the hell I pleased about it with no regard for verifiability or accuracy, load it with my own opinions, and then use it as a source for an encyclopedia article here on WP. Preposterous. Broad community consensus on Wikipedia has been that external links to other wikis are inappropriate, and that wikis are unreliable sources. That is why, when you keep adding a link to wikia.com, a bot automatically reverts it. If you would like to try to make the case for avpwiki being a reliable source, take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

With regard to the "Alien vs. Predator" / "Aliens vs. Predator" business, the point is that the 2 variants (Alien vs. Aliens) are used somewhat interchangeably throughout the many works that are part of the franchise (some use the singular, some use the plural). The titles are going to be equally familiar to readers, especially considering that with the 2 most prominent items in the franchise (the 2 feature films), 1 uses the singular and 1 uses the plural. The article's first sentence makes it quite clear that the 2 titles are used interchangeably throughout the franchise. I do not consider "vs." and "versus" to be variants, as one is merely an abbreviation of the other (and if you look at List of Alien and Predator games, there have been several variations on this used as well: "versus", "vs.", "vs"). They all have the same meaning to a reader. It suffices quite easily for the article to start off "Alien vs. Predator or Aliens vs. Predator is a science fiction crossover franchise..." --IllaZilla (talk) 08:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, so you stay up all night doing this stuff, huh. You're all about copyright law and yet in this case you want to ignore it. The title of a franchise--a product--is a simple thing. A legal thing. If the Library of Congress, or an encyclopedia article mispells even a punctuation point of a title, then they have made a serious error. And you are trying to make that error because of your insistence on oversimplification? It doesn't matter what you consider to be the same. It matters what the owners of this product are publishing on the covers, movie posters, and video game boxes of their content TODAY, not ten years ago. Dark Horse Comics has renamed the series to replace the spelled out "versus" with the abreviated "vs.", just as Twentieth Century Fox has added an "s" to Alien. Not that there needs to be any reasoning beyond that, but it makes complete sense for them to want to have one form of a name for a brand that, as you point out, has had a number of them in the past. But you interfere. The vast majority of the titles have used the plural, and the present ones do, too. Yet you don't want to mention it.--F.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.211.125 (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Monster Mash

I would appreciate it if you would not revert a legitimate addition and give me time to find the source. Especially since the entire section has no sources to it as well! One only has to listen to the song in order to confirm my addition. I will find a source. So, unless you can find a source for the entire section that confirms what has been written, then I don't see a problem allowing me some time to find a source for mine. Thank you --Canyouhearmenow 16:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you leaving a welcome message on my talk page..LOL However, I can assure you I am not new to Wikipedia! I will not get into a reverting war about this, however, I will go through the article and remove everything that is not sourced. Thank you for bringing this to my attention! --Canyouhearmenow 16:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the article lacks sufficient sources is not a justification for adding more unreferenced content, especially content which says "this is the most impressive back door history of the song". Feel free to trim any other unreferenced claims you may find. It was almost 2 hours between your edit and my revert, so you could've added a source if you had one. It'd be best if you got the source first, and added the citation when making the claim, rather waiting til a later date to verify the claims already made. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the templated message, I was sort of on auto-pilot & didn't notice your long contrib history, otherwise I would've left a more personal message rather than an impersonal templated one. Sorry. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I did have a source when I wrote the addition, however upon verifying it closer I found that the source was not reliable enough to use. I therefore started looking and was in the middle of going through some of my musical history books when you made the revert. I have added a tag to this article and will go through it and remove a good portion due to lack of verification. Again, I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. The problem that you have with Gary S Paxton is that his history is very spotty and not much has been written about him even though he has been a fixture in music for a very long time. Hence the reason people have a hard time finding information on him. --Canyouhearmenow 16:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, I'll leave you to it. I'm sure you can see how my OR trigger finger got itchy on seeing the diff of your original edit, but still I apologize for being somewhat hasty. Good luck with the source searching & I look forward to reading it after you've worked on it! Happy editing! --IllaZilla (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 24 hours, for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|I believe I am being rebuked for my recent activity at List of emo artists: I openly disclose that have been engaged in an edit dispute there with User:Smk42, who has been removing referenced content from the article and replacing it with unreferenced content despite many requests to discuss the issue and to provide sources for his additions. I have taken the issue to ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Smk42), and had intended to cease editing the article until a decision there was reached. In retrospect I realize that I reverted more than 3 times, and that I allowed myself to be drawn into an edit war. I do regret that, and an examination of my editing history will show that it is not typical for me to do so (in over 4 years this is the first time I've found myself blocked). I had intended to continue working on some userspace projects (User:IllaZilla/Darby Crash, primarily) while continuing to discuss the dispute at the ANI thread and on the article's talk page (where one can see I have already engaged in discussion with Smk42). I request that I be unblocked, with the stipulation that I will avoid editing the disputed article for some time. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)}}

I have no problem with this as blocking admin, but since I blocked both parties, I'll let someone else review.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Net (1995 film)

I notice you undo my edit to The Net (1995 film), you used WP:NFCC as your reason, but WP:NFCC doesn't apply here since I increase the size but not the resolution, and WP:NFCC clearly limits resolution for images. Next time do not hide behind WP:NFCC, if you do like it that size please said so. d'oh! _talk 14:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to criteria #6 of NFCC: "The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy.". The image use policy says "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so". It interferes with with the Wikimedia software's ability to use its default thumbnail size and with logged-in users' ability to use their preferred thumbnail size as defined in their settings. And actually, with .jpg images, image size and resolution are directly related. Note that I have tagged File:Netposter1995.jpg with {{Non-free reduce}}: Since its only use is as an infobox image, it should not be larger than required for use in that infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Still #6 of NFCC doesn't apply here, since the infobox defines the image size which is currently 200px. I just used that movie as a example I didn't add that image, and I never will as I know it not inline with WP:NFCC#8. d'oh! _talk 14:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You've got a point about #6, since the infobox does dictate the image size, so I guess my argument on that point was fundamentally flawed. Still I think someone else brought up the valid point at the template talk page that most film poster should be uploaded at 200px, or shrunk down to that size, as we shouldn't be uploading them at a higher resolution than what's needed for article use. In my experience with album articles that's what's usually done (larger images are shrunken down to infobox size to meet fair use criteria). So I share the concern that increasing the infobox size, even by just 35px, will cause distortion of images that are smaller than 235px. We would then need to employ a bot to go through all film articles and set the size to 200px for those images, a task which could potentially involve tens of thousands of articles. I know you think it looks better if the image fills the whole width of the infobox, and from an aesthetic standpoint that's a perfectly acceptable rationale. Personally I find it aesthetically identical whether the image is 200px or 235, but that's just my opinion. Another technical consideration is that increasing the width of the images will also increase their height, which will make the infobox stretch down a bit farther. I think the infobox is already too long, with the many fields that it has; I don't particularly like the idea of it extending even further down...though again that's an aesthetic opinion on my part. I've made my opinion known; ultimately I'll abide by whatever consensus comes out of the template talk discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Nervous Breakdown (album)

You do realize that by redoing a community banned editor's edits, you are basically editing for him, and basically nullifying the point of his being banned by giving him exactly what he wants and giving him "justification" to continue his socking as long as he get anyone else to just keep up his editing for him, right? This is one of many reasons why blocks and bans on Wikipedia are, in the end, a joke and do not actually work to stop such behaviors. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 17:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, I have no idea who this "community banned editor" is and I don't care. The content of the edit is perfectly legitimate: {{For}} is the correct template to use, and [[bracketing]] the target is unnecessary, as the template links it automatically. The "behavior" you're talking about (and I'm only speaking of this specific edit to this specific article; I have no knowledge of the user's other edits) is not controversial in any way, shape, or form. It helps rather than hurts, so I don't see what the big frigging deal is. Yes, if he is a sockpuppet then he should be blocked, but that does not necessarily mean that every edit he has ever made must be reverted and must never be re-done by any other legitimate editor. If I had noticed that {{For2}} was being used, and entirely on my own changed it to {{For}}, would you have reverted me as well? I am not making the edit "on his behalf" (aka because he asked me to or because we are acting in concert), I am making it because it is an entirely uncontroversial, helpful technical edit that I would have made myself if I'd noticed it first. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter if it is legitimate. He is community banned, all of his edits are reverted whether someone might consider them "legitimate" or not, every last one. He isn't allowed to edit, at all. All it would have taken was a few moments to check his talk page as to why it was reverted, to see who he was, and why he was banned. But suit yourself, you've taken ownership of the change, it is now on you.-- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 17:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"All it would have taken was a few moments to check his talk page as to why it was reverted, to see who he was, and why he was banned." I had no reason to check his talk page, since you did not state in your original edit summary that he was banned, or that the revert had anything to do with him as an editor rather than with the content of the edit. If you had stated "reverting banned user" or "reverting sockpuppet" or something in your edit summary I would have thought to dig deeper to see what was going on. I'm just an editor; I don't think I should have to play detective as well. As for ownership of the change being on me, I think I can live with that... --IllaZilla (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

He made dozens of edits, which were all rollbacked (which in general doesn't leave an edit summary). The IP had already been blocked two weeks ago for being a sock, and as soon as he came off his block, he started right back up. That there was no summary should have warranted investigation as it generally means rollback was used. But ah well, he is blocked again under both the IP and named sock he made at the same time, so ah well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 17:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I can't fault you for not leaving a summary; I use rollback to revert socks & vandals too, so I realize it doesn't leave a summary & that can cause confusion. From my perspective you can see that I was acting in good faith by restoring the original edit, since I didn't know the editor's history & saw the edit itself as technically correct. Ah well, in the end I guess we both got what we wanted ;) --IllaZilla (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm, excuse me? Giving this self-obsessed megalomaniac a position of power over other users is not only what he's lusted after since he arrived on the scene, it's also about as clever as bouncing up and down in a suit of armour on top of a hill in the middle of a thunderstorm shouting "I hate all gods", in short, a pretty bad idea. --86.181.166.216 (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jupiter. Bye Jupiter. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it funny that despite your multitude of enemies, whenever an IP badmouths you, you immediately assume that it's me. --86.181.166.216 (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I might not, if I didn't turn out to be correct each time. And if you'd care to name any of these other "enemies", I'd sure like to meet them. It's kind of flattering to imagine there might be "multitudes". --IllaZilla (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Come on, you're not correct every time. I can't believe you're still convinced that poor Dommy Noster guy is me. Good editor but he's a little too tolerant of policy for my liking. As for the multitudes, I should imagine the countless people you've no doubt pissed off with your arbitrary domination of the Alien and Predator related articles. I can't imagine how many fascinating opinions and contributions have been lost to those articles. The mythos surrounding the Xenomorph is fascinating. But I'm becoming sentimental. Learner 001, remember him? Dude, that guy served your arse to you on a silver platter. Though I seem to remember I gallantly defended you at the time. Sportsmanship and all that. --86.181.166.216 (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

And one more thing, I do not look like a duck. --86.181.166.216 (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You certainly have a vivid imagination, I'll give you that. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Thank you. --86.181.166.216 (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to join his opinion. Illazilla I think you might live in your own bubble by having this "god complex" that allows you to erase everything that acording to your criteria is wrong. You are missing several facts that could be helpful to wikipedia by getting too "obssesed" with your possition in all of these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.152.228.179 (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, but have we ever interacted before? Have I reverted or altered one of your edits? Can you point to any specific activity of mine that you're upset with? Because if you're going to accuse me of having a "god complex", it'd sure be helpful if you could provide examples. I have over 2,600 pages on my watchlist that I edit or keep an eye on, so it's difficult to discern what activity you're referring to. (Also, it's kind of ironic to be accused of "living in a bubble" and having a "god complex" from someone agreeing with YourLord, who absolutely fits both of those descriptions...) --IllaZilla (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

We have certainly interacted before. I am one of those who are interested in having an article for "Last of the american girls" single. Everytime we make the article about this single you erase it or reply the discussion pages saying it is not a truly single, beyond all the proofs that me and other people have gave to you to certify it is. It makes me wonder if you have some personal reason for believing it isnt (probably you can buy it on your music store, i do not know the reason just saying an example) or something else because i can not believe you keep erasing it beyond all proofs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.152.187.224 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

←Since your IP is dynamic (changes every time you edit) I didn't recognize you. As for Last of the American Girls, we've had an article on it for a couple of months so I'm not sure what you mean when you say I "erase it". I'm also not sure what "proofs" you're talking about: I cannot find a single—in vinyl, CD, or digital format—from any US retailer (including iTunes). The closest thing I can find is a listing on Amazon for an "import maxi CD", but it doesn't say what country it's from, what the track listing is, or any other relevant details. I also can't find any mention of a single release in any of the usual formats on Green Day's official website, and I've looked back as far as early December 2009. In any case I'd prefer it if you kept discussion of that article on the article's talk page, where others can see it. It does us little good to have the conversation here, where only the 2 of us are likely to be paying attention to it. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Emo on the internet?

Hi I was trying to do an article on emo on the Internet. I originally was just doing emo forums because they're so popular but I made my article more generic towards just "emo on the internet" instead of being so specific. I've even removed several of the forums I mentioned and cut my article down so that it mostly just mentions what was on the news on television and on the Internet. Could you tell me what's wrong with my article and how I can expand upon it? --IDOFEB (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think that this is an appropriate topic for Wikipedia, particularly not for a stand-alone article, so I'm not going to bother much with it. Basically there is a lot of original research in your text; you're making analyses and claims that aren't explicitly supported by the sources you're citing. A number of the sources you're citing are also of very poor caliber; Wikipedia requires "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I've already explained to you a couple of times my best advice: place the text in a user subpage, try to find better sources, remove the claims that are your own analysis that the sources don't explicitly support, and then request a peer review. The basic problem here boils down to your approach: You're starting with your conclusions, and then trying to find sources to back them up...you already know what you want the article to say, and hence you're trying to force the sources to agree with you. This is all backwards: You should start by gathering sources, deciding which ones are the most reliable, and then base your text on what they say. That's how research writing is done. Your text should reflect the sources, not the other way around. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Writer credits in the film infobox

Hey there! :-) The discussion on the writer credits in the film infobox has really picked up in the last few days (basically all comments starting from July 30th), and we're now getting closer to a consensus. Currently, we are trying to determine if there are any objections to adding the fields "Screenplay by" and "Story by". The discussion is still located here. If you have read up on the suggestions and have any objections to these two fields, please post here. If some time goes by without objections, we will take these additions for granted and move on to the next solution. Thank you in advance! Prime Blue (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for help

Hey, I just had someone add a "Controversies" section to Warped Tour 2010. Someone attending yesterday's stop on the tour died. Right now everyone is saying it was due to dehydration even though the cause of death is currently unknown. People are sourcing a Twitter account which isn't exactly the most reliable source for this kind of information. I've removed the entry and have a feeling it's gonna wind up being an edit war. Just looking for an extra set of eyes to watch the page until some actual factual information comes out. DX927 (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye on it. Any unsourced or poorly-sourced information (Twitter...please *rolleyes*) should definitely be kept out. A single death or injury hardly represents a "controversy", anyway. Clearly people trying to sensationalize something minor (like it's the first time anyone ever died or was injured at a concert). If third-party reliable sources start reporting on it, then sure, that's something to go on. But some musician's Twitter feed is just hearsay. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I just found an actual article and added it under an "Incidents" section since it would be notable enough to include. Made sure to state that it's currently unknown what caused his death. I'm just worried about people continually adding "because of dehydration." Keep an eye on it for the Warped Tour entry as well. I'll try to do the same. DX927 (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

21st Century Breakdown Tour

Apologies, I wanted to elaborate my stance in the edit box during the previous edit but accidentally reverted the page too early. I find that the point you brought up on MOS:FLAG specifically refers to contexts when flags are used to illustrate a specific person's citizenship. No nationality is being emphasized in this context; as I said before the icons provide useful navigational and layout cues within 100+ tour dates and this is mentioned in the MOS:FLAG guideline. (Freak.scenery (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC))

"Ugh."

Don't 'Ugh' me. Thanks. AarnKrry _{Talk to me, babycakes!} 01:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I was "ugh"ing the concept of all-caps titles. Though the sentiment could be applied to a number of your edits as well. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You're supposed to be 29. That's hilarious. We could just set aside our differences. Also, your small text wasn't at all. Much love x AarnKrry _{Talk to me, babycakes!} 23:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to let bygones be bygones, but I was a bit annoyed by your edit summaries at Searching for a Former Clarity and your flat-out refusal to discuss the issue on the talk page. Such behavior is irritating regardless of age. If you'd discuss your edits rather than continually reverting, it would be much easier to set aside the differences. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I apologise for that. It just seems an awful lot as though you were just doing it to pick at things I considered quite relevant. AarnKrry _{Talk to me, babycakes!} 17:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Like you said, let's set it aside. At the end of the day it's a minor issue & we're both just trying to make better articles, so no harm done. Happy editing! --IllaZilla (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ron Cobb Alien concept art.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ron Cobb Alien concept art.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Macy's Day Parade

I got the information from here. http://pt.wiki.x.io/wiki/Macy%27s_Day_Parade I used Google translator. Joseph507357 —Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC).

The Portuguese Wikipedia is not a reliable source; you cannot use Wikipedia as a self-reference. If the Portuguese article cited sources of its own, you could in turn cite the same sources here. But the Portuguese article is entirely unreferenced as well. The song does not pass WP:NSONGS as there does not appear to be enough reliable secondary source coverage to justify a stand-alone article. The likelihood of finding significant source coverage is slim, since the song was never released as a single. The few chart positions it did reach are already discussed in the album article. All of Green Day's notable songs and singles already have articles; new ones shouldn't be created unless sufficient secondary source coverage is found that would allow for a reasonably-detailed stand-alone article. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's says here it is. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Warning_%28Green_Day_album%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph507357 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't. It was played on the radio, had a video, and hit a couple of charts, but it was never actually released as a single. People constantly confuse singles with just plain songs. A single is a type of release; a song that is released separately from an album, usually in the form of a vinyl record, CD, or digital download. "Macy's Day Parade" was not released in any of these formats; it was available only as an album track. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is there one for Last of the American Girls? Joseph507357 (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There's been a lot of debate about that one. It's been redirected & un-redirected a number of times. All evidence is that it was only actually released as a single in digital format in Germany. However it has charted in 4 countries & has a video in rotation on MTV, which are indicators that there may be enough secondary source coverage out there to warrant an article. Since it's their current radio & video song, it gets a little leeway because we assume that secondary sources are going to devote coverage to it. "Macy's Day Parade", on the other hand, is 9 years old: it's not going to suddenly generate a new wave of critical interest, & if the sources don't exist now then changes are they won't exist anytime soon. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Comics page moves

Please stop your latest campaign of boldly moving comics pages which you appear to believe is non-controversial and acceptable by convention. It isn't and is done by guideline (WP:NCC) and consensus which is how the articles ended up with the names they had before you met them. If you disagree, take up the discussion on a talk page and propse the move. MURGH ^talk 03:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The disambiguation phrase "(comics)" is vague, meaningless, and illogical. You cannot simply disambiguate everything that has to do with comic books (ie. characters, publications, creators, etc.) with the same dab phrase. That is not how disambiguation works. Some of these articles are about characters; they should be dab'd "(character)". Some are about actual comic book series; they should be dab'd "(comic book)".

Take Wolverine (comics) as an example: The article is clearly about the character called Wolverine, while Wolverine (comic book) is about the publication titled Wolverine which stars the character. The second dab "(comic book)" makes perfect sense: it tells the reader exactly what the subject of the article is, which is a comic book titled Wolverine. The first dab "(comics)" is vague at best, and could even be confused with the topic of comic books featuring Wolverine: Am I going to be reading about the character? The publication? Something else? All I can glean from "(comics)" is that it's somehow going to be within the general subject area of comic books. That doesn't help at all. Wolverine (character) would make it clear that the article is about the character named Wolverine, which in fact is what it's about. The logical train of narrowing down the search for the reader is:

• Wolverine — the primary topic, which is the animal

• Wolverine (character) — a fictional character named Wolverine

• Wolverine (comic book) — a comic book titled Wolverine, starring the character

To put it simply, when possible, articles should be disambiguated by what they are about, not a generic umbrella term. You wouldn't see a dab like In Utero (music) or Jurassic Park (movies); no, they're In Utero (album) and Jurassic Park (film), because one article is about an album and one's about a film. Similarly, an article about a character should be dab'd "(character)" (or if more specificity is needed, "comic book character" or "DC Comics character", etc.), an article about a comic book should be dab'd "(comic book)". Using the generic "(comics)" as a blanket dab for every comic-related topic is simply nonsensical. That said, I'm not a member of the Comics project and I'm not familiar with how these naming conventions came about, and I didn't mean to upset the waters. It's just always bugged me when I come across articles dab'd "(comics)" that the phrase isn't descriptive and wouldn't help me at all as a reader. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In any case, these are not uncontroversial moves, and accomplishing them by, e.g., tagging redirects as {{db-move}} is not acceptable. Please stop. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have stopped. Note that I haven't moved or tagged anything for move in several hours. Frankly I was unaware that WP:NCC existed until Murgh brought it to my attention. Now that I'm aware of it, I see that I shouldn't have been so hasty and I regret the mini-crusade I embarked on for a couple of hours there. I still think that "(comics)" is an incredibly stupid dab, but I'm not out to change that little part of the wiki-world right now. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear. I should point out that in at least two cases (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Transformers), your changes would have lost information, since there are comic book series from multiple publishers. Do feel free to pursue these moves by consensus, though - I understand your opinion, though I personally think the utility of shorter disambiguation phrases outweighs it. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "would have lost information": Moving Transformers (comics) → Transformers (comic book) causes no loss of information, and makes perfect sense: the article is about comic books starring the Transformers. In fact if you look at the article it's clearly in list article format, so IMO it ought to be List of Transformers comic books. And the only existing article about a comic book titled Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (Mirage Studios) (the other articles about TMNT comics are titled Tales of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Adventures). The dab "(Mirage Studios)" doesn't indicate to a reader anything about what the article topic is, because unless you already know that Mirage Studios is a comic book publisher then you don't know what the heck you're navigating to: an article about characters? a film? a franchise? a publication? a video game? --IllaZilla (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(Apologies for stepping in...)

I believe the Transformers issues is with The Transformers (Marvel Comics), which did loose information and clarity with a swap to (comic book). Take a look at The Transformers and note that Marvel is not the only company to have published comics under the title. On a since note, there may need to be some work with The Transformers and Transformer (disambiguation) since the former is, or should be, a sub-set of the latter.

As for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (Mirage Studios) (I'm assuming this is by way of example since there appears to have been no move or proposal for such), there is good reason to for it to be considered for moving. Unfortunately, the most likely move with regards to the naming conventions would be to place it at (comics) - the media type - not (comic book) - the publication type. If there were 1 or more additional articles that are equally likely to be searched for under (comics), then (comic book) - if the characters were as likely a search - or (Mirage Studio) - if the Archie comic shared the exact title - would be used. Also note that Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is an article about the characters not the dab page. This presumes that the characters are what a reader is most likely searching for.

Couple of last thoughts from up the thread:

First, "Film" and "Movie" are pretty much interchangeable, either can be used to describe the medium or a specific work. That one and not the other has been chosen as a base dab phrase is more to do with taste than anything else. It's also worth noting that the dab phrase tends to be used as (YEAR film) for reuse of a title and not (GENRE film) or (NATIONALITY film).

Second, IIUC, the Music project has set its standard for dabs to use (album) as an initial dab. Other projects have chosen differently.

- J Greb (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 page

the page Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Alien articles by quality is no longer updated by the bot; that's why it was marked as historical. The bot keeps its article lists in a database now, which is accessible here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Because I see you at the Music wikiproject a lot...

...would you mind voicing an opinion here? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Terminator 2

There were a few mistakes in the plot which I corrected. For instance, Sarah Connor collected weapons from old friends. That's plural! You, in altering my corrections, reverted the plot back to the original, which stated "old friend". Also, if I recall correctly, John Connor's age was never given in the film. Forteana (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The sentence says "Gathering weapons from an old friend, Sarah plans to flee with John to Mexico." I don't see any singular/plural error there. As for John's age, please see Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day#John Connor's Age and Setting. At 12:18 in the film, Robert Patrick's character looks up John Connor in the police car's onboard computer. His date of birth is given as 2/28/85, and his age is listed as 10. Sarah becomes pregnant with John in The Terminator, which is set in 1984. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is set in 1995. Story-wise, it would be physically impossible for John to be 13 years old, as only 11 years have passed between the time Sarah got pregnant and the events of T2. Anyway, his birth date and age are given on-screen, so there you go. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Gathering weapons from an old friend, Sarah plans to flee with John to Mexico."

Accurate version: "Gathering weapons from some old friends, Sarah plans to flee with John to Mexico."

She did not gather the weapons from one old friend, but rather from a group of people, presumably old friends by the way in which they greet each other. Forteana (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well that's not a difficult fix then, is it? --IllaZilla (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So you want me to fix that and, if I find them, other minor errors?

By the way, I looked through the "discussion" page and found that several people insisted that the only time in the films in which John Connor's age is spoken on screen was during T3, in which it is said that he was 13. I would assume his age to be a plot hole. Forteana (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to continue improving on Terminator 2: Judgment Day until it is good enough to become a "featured article". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forteana (talk • contribs) 17:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you can fix minor errors. I didn't realize it was more than 1 person she's gathering weapons from. I don't really think it matters, but if it bugs you, go ahead & fix it. The age thing is a plot hole between T2 & T3; as you can see from the discussion I linked above, John's age in T2 is clearly given on-screen as 10 (it's not in spoken dialogue, but that doesn't really matter). It's also the only number that makes sense, since he's born in '85 & T2 takes place in '95. For him to be 13 the story would have to take place in 1998, a full year after the date given by the Terminator of the upcoming titular Judgment Day. In T3 he says that he was 13 when the T-1000 attacked him; clearly this is a mistake on the part of the T3 writers, or they just retconned it because they wanted him to be in his early 20s for T3 (T3 takes place on July 24, 2004, which'd make John 18 based on his 2/28/85 birthday, and clearly Nick Stahl is older than 18 in the film).

Absolutely, keep on improving the article. It needs the work. I too would like to see it become a featured article, and I'd be glad to help out with copyedits and such as you go along. The work you're doing so far is great, especially with the additions to production sections and the like. Keep it up! --IllaZilla (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Just one more question, that I can think of; I've the Ultimate DVD which is loaded with details about the production. How do I cite it? Is it even an acceptable source? I only joined wikipedia a few days ago and am not completely sure of all the protocols yet.Forteana (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. You can totally cite behind-the-scenes DVD features like that. I did it all over the place in Alien (film). You'll want to use the {{Cite video}} template. It should look something like this:

<ref>{{cite video
|people=[[Dan O'Bannon|O'Bannon, Dan]] (Writer), [[Ridley Scott]] (Director), [[Sigourney Weaver]] (Actor)
|date=2003-12-02
|title=The Beast Within: The Making of Alien
|format=''Alien Quadrilogy'', disc 2
|medium=DVD
|publisher=20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, Inc
|location=Los Angeles}}</ref>

which will produce a reference that looks like this:

O'Bannon, Dan (Writer), Ridley Scott (Director), Sigourney Weaver (Actor) (2003-12-02). The Beast Within: The Making of Alien (DVD). Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, Inc. {{cite AV media}}: |format= requires |url= (help)

Feel free to ask here if you have more questions. I'm always happy to lend new editors a hand! --IllaZilla (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Disburbed: Asylum (Release Date)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Disburbed: Asylum (Release Date) and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimv1983 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

List of emo artists

I am rather confused by your argument on this page for including bands that do not have articles. The list is described as "...a list of notable musical artists who have been referred to or have had their music described as emo". By its very definition, a notable artist would be expected to have a wikipedia article. The criteria for inclusion is therefore bands that have a wikipedia article that have been described as emo in reliable sources. The consensus for this is right there in the lead sentence, in stating quite clearly that it is a list for notable bands. Various other lists include similar criteria, and bands that do not have articles are deleted, and I do not see why this list should be any different. Yes, they have a reference, but they don't have an article and therefore should not be included until such an article exists (if one ever will). Nouse4aname (talk) 07:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Notable" in article text does not necessarily mean "Notable in Wikipedia-speak" (in fact we should probably rethink that lead, since we're injecting Wiki-jargon into the article unnecessarily). All of these artists are sourced, so the existence of sources indicates that they could potentially have WP articles. Removing them takes away sourced, relevant information from the article while giving no added benefit to readers. If all the list is is a collection of blue links, then it doesn't serve any purpose that Category:Emo musical groups doesn't already serve. List articles are supposed to be more than that. What I'd like to see the List of emo artists evolve into eventually is something where each artist has an accompanying short paragraph explaining their sound and role in relation to emo. That's the only way I can see that list ever getting even close to FL-worthy. In that state artists without separate articles would still be valuable, because you could still have referenced text about them. That's what separates well-written list articles from plain old categories. Probably why there's nary a "list of <genre> artists" to be found amongst our featured lists. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps we should just remove the word notable from the lead altogether then. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I definitely think the lead needs rethinking. Removing "notable" would be a start. If you've got any other suggetions, I'm open to 'em. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Ripley

Feel free to take this to WP:AFD. It's an ancient piece of trifle that I wrote many eons ago that I think could go. It should be done the formal way though, as several people have contributed besides myself. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just considering PRODing it, but you're right, it should go to AfD. I'll get on it. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Saved to my Wordspace. Little gems like this article are just what Wikipedia needs more of. :) --86.150.169.20 (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Jog on, Jupiter. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it

What's the point in having year in film articles if they can't be linked to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polisher of Cobwebs (talk • contribs) 00:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not that they can't be linked to, it's just that the link has to be contextual. It shouldn't come off as a surprise. The best place to link a "year in film" article is in a parenthetical aside—ie. (see 2004 in film)—or a "See also" section. Just because these articles exist doesn't mean they have to be linked to from every article about a film that was released that year. Compare the practice at WP:ALBUMS#Dating: it used to be common to pipe links to "year in music" articles in album article leads, and in discographies, just as you did with these film articles. That practice was deprecated because it was decided that these links weren't actually that helpful to readers, and that the practice represented a classic case of overlinking and easter-egg linking. It's similar with film articles; WP:MOSFILM doesn't call for "year in film" articles to be piped in leads, nor should it, because it would conflict with WP:EGG. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, thanks for the advice. I'll remove the links if someone else hasn't already. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

4 years, 4 months, 4 days

Just thought I'd tell you. The first time I look on your page in weeks and it's a milestone. Congratulations :) · AarnKrry · _{Words speak louder than actions} · 11:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Please don't remove content from my talk page, though. I know we've put the issue behind us, but I have a bot in place that will archive the content automatically in about a week. Happy editing! --IllaZilla (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Good Riddance

Good work with the recent rewrites. It's only because I kept getting orphaned image messages that I remembered I started the articles over 4 years ago now! They were a fantastic band. – B.hotep •talk• 22:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

They sure were! Sorry about the orphaned image notices; I anticipated you might get those. It's just that I felt the file names needed to be more descriptive and, well, uploading new ones is a much faster way to accomplish that than tagging them for renaming :P --IllaZilla (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's fine. Nothing a bit of "undo" magic can't solve! – B.hotep •talk• 06:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

big black drum machine

from the big black discussion page:

Do you have a source for this claim? I've been extensively rewriting the article lately and all the sources I've found only mention a Roland TR-606. There is no mention of an "EMU Drumulator". --IllaZilla (talk) 07:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Steve Albini's posts here: [9] [10] [11] You can hear the drumulator alone here, makes comparing the two easier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.71.54 (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Release date

Can you help with an IP editor? 98.234.74.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been changing the release date in the infobox of Asylum (Disturbed album) (most likely same editor as Jimv1983 (talk · contribs), but that is beside the point), and now the editor has moved onto other album articles changing the earliest release date to the "official" release date (the American release date put on the artists website). He doesn't seem interested in learning what a WP:RS is nor seems to care that there is a consensus in place. Any help you could give would be helpful. BOVINEBOY2008 10:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but I'm likely to be off-wiki most of today & tomorrow. Might be worth filing a sockpuppet case if you think it's the same guy. I wouldn't be surprised if it was, given his hang-up with "official"ness. How much more official does it get than being on a store shelf, and someone being able to walk in and buy it? --IllaZilla (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but I can't seem to get through to the editor, plus I can't revert more without edit warring. No one has responded from the post on the Project page either, and he is proposing the documentation to be changed at the infobox talk to say "official". I can't keep arguing with him/her on my own. Any input you can give when you can is great. BOVINEBOY2008 17:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Changing the template documentation? That's got to be the same guy. I might start a SPI, and if it looks like the edit wars are ongoing I'll request semi-protection. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I opened an SPI. I really don't want this headache when there are so many other things I'd rather be working on. BOVINEBOY2008 18:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Against Me! music videos

Hey again. In AM!'s discography page, there is no mention of the Those Clapping Hands into Angry Balled Fists music video. I don't know how to add it in, as it was their first music video, I'm pretty sure. If you could do that, it'd be cool. Thanks! · AarnKrry · _{Words speak louder than actions} · 15:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know about that one; it wasn't listed on the band's website when I was compiling the discography. Good find! I'd rather not cite Youtube, as it's unofficial and probably violating copyright by being there, but if I can't find another source I'll use it anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Sunshine / At the Drive-In for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Sunshine / At the Drive-In, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunshine / At the Drive-In until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

ATDI/Sunshine

Hey, when you get a chance can you copyedit that article? At this point, I think there are enough references for it to stay. Thanks :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a once-over. Fantastic work there! --IllaZilla (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hellbilly

Hi IllaZilla. If you have time this problematic article could use some constructive criticism. I have made a suggestion on the talkpage, but I am really just trying to come up with a solution to a tricky problem and I am open to serious suggestions. Though you might be the sort of serious editor who might provide some perspectibe. Keep the faith.--SabreBD (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk archive on Collectivism article

I posted a message about bot archiving on Talk:Collectivism. Thought this may interest you. All is One (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Macy's Day Parade

In the case of Macy's Day Parade, if the info sheet for the CD comes right out and says "This is the first single to be taken to radio from the International Superhits album," I think it's a single. Even though it didn't chart, I don't know what more you want. -Disco dude rock (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What "info sheet for the CD"? Please provide sources to back up your claims. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

http://greendaydiscography.com/images/cdsingles/macysdayparade_xxxx_sheet.jpg -Disco dude rock (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(A) greendaydiscography.com is a self-published fan site and thus is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. This has been explained to you before on your talk page. (B) Radio-only promotional discs are not singles, because they are not released commercially. This has also been explained to you before. I've checked Billboard, Allmusic, and several other sources and none of them list "Macy's Day Parade" as a single. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, with the exception of the non-album singles "I Fought the Law" and "Shoplifter", Green Day has not had a released single since 1995 that failed to chart on at least one of the Billboard charts. There is every reason to assume that, if "Macy's Day Parade" had actually been released as a single, it would have charted, since it was meant to promote a Greatest Hits album by a multiplatinum, world-famous act. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but now you're just assuming. But this was only to discuss the existance of a physical single in the first place anyways. And, do you have any input on where the MDP chart data from the Green Day discography came from? -24.58.75.216 (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a clue. In fact I went ahead & removed it because it couldn't be verified. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dead by Sunrise

So aparently leaving a warning out to all the other IP adresses that were instegating problems is innapropriate? Espicially found within the case of several other editor's restoring the genre as well? • GunMetal Angel 09:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The hidden message you had placed in the article saying "do not change anything within this section, your edit will be reverted quickly" was inappropriate. No one is prohibited from editing Wikipedia (except in extreme cases such as banned users or protected pages), and within reason we should not discourage or prevent others from editing (per WP:OWN). If your message had had a more neutral tone, such as "please discuss on the talk page before changing genres" or "all genres should be supported by sources", it would have been OK. But threatening to revert straight away anyone who dares to edit the genres is entirely inappropriate and makes it seem as if you are "owning" the article. The article is currently semi-protected, so your IP problems should resolve themselves. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Same type of hidden warning is displayed on the articles for the bands Trivium and Slipknot... ect.. so don't point a finger at me. • GunMetal Angel 19:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't absolve you of responsibility. It's inappropriate, and you're responsible for your own edits. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Opinion request

Could you give your opinon here? Candyo32 01:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

21st Century Breakdown World Tour

Regarding the breakdown of the number of shows by continent within the concert infobox... is such information not a summation? Breaking down the number of shows by country and/or state is what I would consider "fine detail". I feel that the purpose of listing the number of the shows by continent is to give the reader a quick representation of the regions the tour reached and the respective level of touring activity. (Freak.scenery (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC))

The intention of the field (per the template documentation) is to simply show the total number of shows. If the intent were to list by-region breakdowns, we'd have some dedicated field for that. Listing the number of shows by continent unnecessarily stretches the infobox and is not necessary for an at-a-glance summary. If readers want to know the regions the tour reached and the level of touring activity, they need merely read the article lead or glance at the tables in the article body. The infobox is not intended to serve this purpose. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I found out what was wrong with the "locations" parameter. I have reinstated that, so at least that covers the regions the tour reached within the infobox. Would it suffice to at least mention the number of cancelled dates after the total number of shows? (Freak.scenery (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC))

I don't really think that's infobox-pertinent. There was only 1 cancelled date, and the "Cancelled dates" section is listed right in the table of contents. The total # of shows is the total # that were played, not the # planned. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Green Day

Why do you keep reverting peoples edits on Template:Green Day? I understand that it's not a discography but it's been like that forever, and now all of a sudden you're removing EPs and some live albums, and why aren't you doing this to anyone elses template? i just wanna know why. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not removing them. Please check the page history before making accusations. RyanTN392 (talk · contribs) has been making the removals. I restored one of his edits because, when I actually checked the links, all the ones he had removed were (at the time) redirects to Green Day discography. That being the case, his edit was correct. {{Green Day}} is a navbox, not a discography: It should only contain working links to existing articles, not redirects. I note that some of those links are no longer redirects, as there appear to be disputes at the individual articles about whether they should be redirected or not. That's a separate issue. In any case you are wrong to suggest that the template needs semi-protection, just as you are wrong to knee-jerk revert RyanTN392 without first checking the links he was removing, and wrong to blame me since I have not been the one performing the edits that you are upset about. "It's been like that forever" is not a valid argument for anything. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, i did look in the history, and i noticed you reverted someone's edit, removing all of the EPs, so i'm sorry i thought you did it, and i just wanna know, which links redirected to Green Day discography? because i remember checking them to see if that's why people removed it, but it was working, so i was just wondering, and i do think it should be semi-protected, since it appears that theres alot of vandilism, another thing is he made them redirect to Green Day discography, and why are you always mad at me? all i'm trying to do is be a good editor, i think you should be a little nicer to me. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Because you have a tendency to get hot under the collar, and when you do you edit war, knee-jerk revert, and become somewhat uncivil. Please calm down a bit and remember that noone owns the template nor any other content on Wikipedia; I realize you have a passion for Green Day, but you've got to stop getting so incensed when other people make changes that you don't like. Anyway, about the links: At the time I restored RyanTN392's edit, the following links were all redirects to Green Day discography:

• Foot in Mouth (album)
• Bowling Bowling Bowling Parking Parking
• 1,000 Hours
• Sweet Children (EP)
• Slappy

Since they were all redirects (at the time), I felt that RyanTN392 was correct to remove those links from the navbox. I was not aware that he was the one who redirected them, nor did I particularly care...my only interest was ensuring that the template contained only working links to extant articles. I'm not particularly interested in whether those articles are redirected or not—that needs to be figured out between editors on an article-by-article basis—but either way the navigation template should be updated to ensure that it only links to existing articles.

There isn't really much genuine vandalism to the template, just content disputes. I doubt that an admin would semi-protect it on that basis, since there isn't any ongoing or recent vandalism. Pages aren't generally protected unless there's persistent and ongoing vandalism or edit-wars that can't be solved by blocking the offending parties. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, i'm calm right now, so you shouldn't hold that over me just because i did something wrong in the past, that's not really nice to be mean to me when i'm doing nothing wrong, you can be mad at me all you want when i'm doing something wrong, but i'm not so be nice to me, and i don't appreciate it, another thing, why does everyone get mad at me for being in an edit war, you guys are in on it too, it's not just me and it shouldn't be just me that gets in trouble, that is not fair at all, so i would really appreciate it if you didn't do this to me anymore, it's gotten so bad that i'm actually thinking about quiting wikipedia because everybody on here is so mean to me, i don't wanna start fights with anybody, i'm done fighting, you guys are putting so much stress on me i feel like i'm gonna have a heart attack, i just want so much for people to like me, and i don't undo some edits just because i don't like it, when i do that i'm trying to improve articles, and that's what people don't seem to get, people say i don't listen to people, no, you guys don't listen to me, you don't even hear what i have to say i'm automatically wrong, anyways, i re-added those to the template, since they don't redirect anymore. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I understand your frustration. You're pretty new here, we were all new once, and finding yourself stonewalled by other editors can be frustrating. My best advice is, if you don't understand why a certain edit was made or why your edit was reverted, ask on the article's talk page. Most editors will be happy to explain themselves there, and other editors may be able to chime in, and that way we can build consensus. I understand it can be difficult: You're editing a topic that you obviously care about, and you feel like the more entrenched editors are shutting you out.

Sometimes, though, things are the way they are for a reason: most of these articles have been around for some time and have had a lot of reviewing and consensus-building go into them already (case in point: 21st Century Breakdown, which went through a review and is listed as a GA). When someone new comes charging in making a lot of changes, some of the more veteran editors who watch those pages may be a bit quick to reach for the undo button. It's not because they're trying to shut you out; in most cases it's because they've been contributing to the article for some time, and have taken part in many of the talk page discussions, so they may have knowledge of precedents or prior consensus to which you may not be privvy. When faced with a situation like that it's easy to feel bullied, but I think if you give most editors a chance and try to discuss things with them you'll find that they're reasonable people.

Ultimately, if Wikipedia is actually causing you stress, it's probably best to take a break. Believe me, I've been in that position, and occasionally I've made some dumb mistakes because of it (a while back I let myself get baited into an edit war and was briefly blocked, the first time I'd ever been blocked in almost 5 years of editing...if I'd just taken a break and come back to the issue the next day with a cool head, I could've avoided that situation). This is just an online encyclopedia, after all, it's not worth getting real-world stress over. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, and taking a little time to cool off can help you come back to the issues with a fresh perspective. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the advice :), and sorry. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, well, i took about a two day break, and i feel alot better, but now i'm having some more trouble, somebody just came to the Dookie article and restored a version from a few months ago, without the track list template, and when i try to re-add the track list template, he keeps reverting my edit, i'm probably the one that's wrong but it's frustrating me and i don't know what to do, i'm not gonna just keep re-adding it because that will start an edit war, what should i do? --Chickenguy13 (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look & see if I can help. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about what i did to 21st Century Breakdown, and no, i don't remember you ever telling me not to do that, i remember you saying to use the start date in the infoboxes, but not that, so don't get mad at me. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it's not a big deal. The infobox is actually set up to accept a number of variant inputs, but the basic code is always one word, lower case. I did mention this before in edit summaries: [12] [13]. Really, though, it's not a big deal. I just wondered if you'd read the template documentation. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, and yeah i did read it :), sorry. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Judge Dredd (1995 film)‎

"Undid revision 387704253 by Andy Dingley (talk) doesn't make any sense here in the plot section, & forces the plot below the infobox)"

Which browser are you using that breaks so badly? Do you have a strange non-mainstream skin? It shouldn't (and AFAICS doesn't) force a clear like that. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Just IE8 with default settings. When an image would right-align against the infobox, the image & any text following it are forced below the infobox. That image also doesn't make any sense in the plot section. It doesn't relate to the plot, doesn't help describe anything in the text, & generally just appears random & out-of-place. It'd do better in the Production section, which could really use some content about the sets, effects, and props. That would also avoid the conflict with the infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Emo and non-free media files

Thank you for your pleasant rejoinder. Let's just take the first of the clips that were removed, shall we? That would be File:Rites of Spring - Remainder.ogg. I'll note first off that the fair use rationale is a cut-paste from several other fair use rationales of yours, with a purpose of "It illustrates an educational article that specifically discusses the genre of music which the recording represents. The section of music used is representative of the genre's musical and vocal style, which are discussed in the article." Let's have a look at this bit by bit; "It illustrates an educational article that specifically discusses the genre of music which the recording represents". Really? There's no citation to support that statement, that this particular piece does this. "The section of music used is representative of the genre's musical and vocal style" Really? Again, no citation. "which are discussed in the article" False. The piece is not discussed in the article. The band is discussed, this particular music sample is not. There's no connection to it from the article. In the file's caption, we have "The melodic guitars, varied rhythms, and deeply personal lyrics of Rites of Spring broke from the rigid boundaries of hardcore and helped launch the "emotional hardcore" or "emocore" style." That's about Rites of Spring, not this piece specifically. I.e., it's not connected. Find citations to back this up, that this piece is connected to these statements. THEN the sample becomes relevant. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, especially the nutshell summary.

Further, WP:NFCC #3a mitigates against using so much non-free content. This article uses 12 such files, tying it for 79th place on this list. There's a reason that list exists. It's because we work hard to avoid articles having such large amounts of non-free files on them. Our m:Mission is focused on a free content encyclopedia. We don't include non-free content unless there is a strong reason to do so. Liberally adding samples to this article where the samples aren't even mentioned in the article prose is highly excessive and unnecessary use of non-free media.

Unless you can strongly tie in these samples to the article's prose, doing so with cites to reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability, these files will be removed from the article. Or you can just choose to call all of this "bullshit" and edit war them all back onto the article when they are removed. I think you should consider joining the discussion at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#excessive_amounts_of_Fair-use_Audio_Files_at_Emo. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my terse & rather uncivil edit summary. I'd just gotten out of bed, your deletion notice was the first thing I saw when I turned on my monitor, & I was understandably pissed. Anyway, the rationale is cut-and-paste because the reason for its use in the article is the same as the reason for every other audio sample. Almost every rationale for an album cover across all of WP is cut-and-paste (heck, we have a boilerplate for it); that doesn't automatically make any of them invalid. To address your specific points:

• "It illustrates an educational article that specifically discusses the genre of music which the recording represents". Really? There's no citation to support that statement, that this particular piece does this.

Actually there are 2 referenced sentences right next to the sample that discuss the band's lyrical and vocal style:

• Minor Threat fan Guy Picciotto formed Rites of Spring in 1984, breaking free of hardcore's self-imposed boundaries in favor of melodic guitars, varied rhythms, and deeply personal, impassioned lyrics.[3] Many of the band's themes would become familiar tropes in later generations of emo music, including nostalgia, romantic bitterness, and poetic desperation.[4]

Granted, they don't discuss this specific song, but how else does one illustrate the "melodic guitars, varied rhythms, and poetic deperation" of a musical ensemble? This can't be done with text. Nothing in NFCC says that there has to be critical commentary on the song specifically, just that "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". The topic is Emo, a musical style, and more specifically in this section it's Rites of Spring and their musical/vocal style, which are specifically referenced in the text. Naturally readers will want to know what this musical/vocal style sounds like, since they are cited as the originators of the style that is the article topic. An audio sample is the only adequate way to illustrate this.

• WP:NFCC #3a mitigates against using so much non-free content.

Actually, 3a doesn't mitigate this type of use, since each sample serves to illustrate the particular musical style of a different act, and the evolution of the genre over time. Thus one (or just a few) wouldn't suffice. In fact Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music samples) says "There is no limit to the number of samples that can be used in one article", provided that they are all relevant and "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" (per NFCC #8), which these do. Punk rock which is the only FA on a music genre, has 21 non-free music samples in it, and had 17 at the time it was promoted to FA.

• Unless you can strongly tie in these samples to the article's prose, doing so with cites to reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability, these files will be removed from the article.

I'm well aware of RS & V, thanks, having actively edited for 4½ years. If you'd like I can go back to a previous version where I had citations in each of the file captions, but I felt these were redundant to the cites in the body text & made the caption boxes look awkward (some awkward spacing of lines, etc.). --IllaZilla (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Linking to albums in other sections

WP:OVERLINK clearly states "but avoid adding obvious or redundant links. An article is said to be underlinked if words are not linked that aid understanding of the article". In this case it is accepted that albums are already linked in the lead section and then in the albums section. In the following singles section there is no need to link to the album as the album is already linked twice prior. Adding a link to the album in the album section is seen as redundent because those linking for information about the album would look at the album's section not the single's section. It is a known standard which is always brought up in FL discussions and the conclusion is always to remove 'these' redundent links. Are you objecting to the change because "you actually disagree" or because "personally you don't agree with things unless there is a rule page somewhere stating 'x is not allowed'?" -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:REPEATLINK (part of the same guidelines) explicitly says to repeat links in tables, as each row is treated separately. It stands to reason that, since our discographies are formatted as tables, we should follow this guideline, particularly when the tables appear in separate sections (often with significant space between each other). I am not aware of the "known standard" you refer to, as literally every discography I've worked on (about 15) links the albums from the singles section (and most did before I got there). The topic is currently the subject of discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#Link to album on singles table, where current opinion seems to favor linking the albums, but only once per table and on the first use. I would take it as good faith for you not to change the style guide while the discussion is still underway, particularly when the current popular opinion seems to be that we should retain the links. If consensus comes out the other way after discussion, then fine, the guide can be changed. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, OVERLINK does not refer to the repetition of links, but to the value of links. That is, it advises to only link terms that would be valuable to increasing reader understanding. Linking common terms like tree or book would be an example of overlink. REPEATLINK deals with repetition of links over the course of an article, and as I've said it explicitly says to do so when dealing with tables. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course I'll respect the on-going discussion and act in good faith. I wasn't aware that the discussion had picked up so much speed. As of yet there's is no consensus and I certainly wouldn't want to draw massive conclusions from the opinions of just 3-4 users. I would like to see a more thorough review especially from people from WP:Accessibility since they can give us a good angle on how links affect that aspect of readibility. With regards to the 'known' standard. In every GA and FL I've personally done, the repetition of links in more than one section (except for the lead) constituted unnecessary repetition. However I am open to changing my mind that infact it is useful to link albums if the largest proportion of opinion supports it. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Recent discussions at WP:DISCOG may lead to some sweeping changes in how our discographies are formatted, in the interest of servicing WP:ACCESS (I haven't taken part in the discussion, but my general sense is that wide-scale changes are on the horizon). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes its true. I myself have been quite involved in the WP:ACCESS stuff though that was accidental. (long story lol). But yes I do see it as an opportunity to review and update the standards, which for a long time have not really been changed to reflect changes in the MOS and general consensus. I am sensing that other users are willing to review aspects of the policy. (see the mixtape stuff). -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

AFI "Medicate" and "Beautiful Thieves"

There are these CDs: [14] (I have already bought one) and [15] and 7-inches [16] and [17]. They are promo CDs that's why they are really rare, you just can't find radio edit of Medicate in Internet)) So it will be better if we return the information added today. By the way it's better to add tracklists of these vinyls. But I don't understand about this "single", because I heard nothing about it - [18] NICKy1038 (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Radio-only promo discs aren't considered singles in the usual sense per WP:ALBUMS because they're not actually released to the public; they're promotional items distributed solely for radio play. The 7-inches, I think, were already discussed on the articles' talk pages (or maybe at Talk:Crash Love, I don't recall). I'm pretty certain "The Missing Frame" was never actually released as a single either. It did chart, but if that's all there is to say about it then that info is already found in AFI discography. That article should probably be redirected to the album. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Country field

Regarding the country field, I know that you support its universal removal. I made a suggestion on the infobox's talk page about starting with a more limited approach of not using the field only when it is contentious. This would not preclude universal removal if the limited approach does not suffice. Please share your thoughts. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Left-placed images

Hi. I double-checked and couldn't find such a restriction. I've been told in the past the left-placed images are fine for main sections (two = signs) but should not be placed inside more nested sections. I wasn't even able to find that restriction, either, though. Yworo (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't find it either, but I remember specifically reading at some point that images should not be left-aligned directly under third-level headers (=== header ===). I believe it has something to do with WP:ACCESS, as it causes problems with screen-readers. I believe the Weaver pic looks awkward left-aligned, as it pushes over multiple paragraphs of left-aligned text and, on the screen I'm using, results in an awkward text wrap at the end of the section. These issues are avoided if the image is right-aligned. In general it is preferrable to use right-aligned images when the text is left-aligned, except where there are multiple images per section and an alternating right/left approach helps to avoid image stacking. There is quite a bit of space (3 whole sections) between the Weaver image and the preceding (Goldsmith) image, enough that there are no issues with stacking and right-aligned images cause the least aesthetic displacement to the body text. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, right-facing images are supposed to be on the left. That argument would ultimately lead to all images being placed on the right, because that's what left-placed images do... but I'll leave it alone for now. Yworo (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It's only considered "often preferable" to place images so that the face or eyes are towards the text. It's a secondary concern to whether the images causes awkward displacement of the text itself. Staggering images right-and-left is fine, where there are long sections of multiple paragraphs and the staggering helps prevent image-stacking, but that's not what we're dealing with here. I'd rather Weaver be facing away from the text than the last sentence of the section do an awkward, hanging far-left wrap below the image. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not worth edit warring over. :-) Ciao! Yworo (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Chronology of albums in the album infobox

Hi there, just wanted to point out that per WP:ALBUM#Chronology, "In a studio album article, the chain (for most artists) should include only other studio albums, excluding live albums and compilations". Thanks—indopug (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen that actually followed in practice. It should probably be revised. It doesn't make any sense to have various chains and sub-chains going on. It also says care must be taken to maintain the integrity of chains, so that when album "A" points to "B" as the next album, "B" points back to "A" as the last (previous) album. Shenanigans precedes American Idiot, and will point to American Idiot as the next album. To maintain the integrity of the chain, American Idiot needs to point back to Shenanigans as the previous album. The wording in the template documentation contradicts itself. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Shenanigans should point to the subsequent compilation album (hence should be empty), while American Idiot should point back to the previous studio album. "Chain" here refers studio albums or compilation albums in specific, not albums in general. As for whether it is actually followed in practice, I make sure that I correct the previous/next albums for albums I'm working on, and I know many other editors who do as well.—indopug (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it makes any sense to have so many separate chains (studio, live, compilation, EP). The widespread practice I've generally observed (and used) is to have all of these in a single chain, and the singles in their own chain (since they use a different infobox). The wording in the template doc seems to reflect older thinking that other types of releases just aren't as important as full-length studio albums, but this isn't very NPOV. Some of these releases are just as important to an artist's catalog as their studio work (thinking of examples like Alive! and The Fame Monster here).

It's also confusing to have all these separate chains. The infobox doesn't say "<artist> studio album chronology" or "<artist> EP chronology", it just says "<artist> chronology". It only makes sense for the chain to include all releases that are using that infobox. Multiple chains just makes navigation more confusing, and doesn't accurately represent a chronology. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Emo

Ok. Please remove all pictures where punks are represented in punk subculture , can you? thanks Spatulli (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to go around policing other stuff, I'm only concerned with the article in question: emo. Pictures of things specifically referenced in the text, like bands, are fine. Even pictures of fashion aspects that are specifically referenced (ie. horn-rimmed glasses...it's hard to tell exactly which characteristics are referenced in the fashion section as the citations come after several sentences). But to take a random picture of some kids, throw it up and say "this is what emo kids look like" is original research, and as you can imagine we get this in the article all the time. What constitutes an "emo look" to you might be wholly different from what it would constitute to someone else. You'd need to explain exactly what aspects of the style the picture represents, in order to show how it represents "emo style". To do that, it has to represent at least a couple of the concepts that are explained in the text. The only thing that picture shows that's mentioned in the text is a guy with dyed hair worn in a fringe. That doesn't imply emo fashion, it could just be some generic kid (I could walk through a local shopping mall and encounter a hundred such hairstyles, it doesn't mean they have anything to do with emo). If you could find, for example, a free image of a well-known person in the emo community (say, a musician) wearing a style that exemplifies several of the elements described in the text, that'd be fine. But random myspace-style pictures of self-described "emo kids" are not what we are looking for as an encyclopedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Adding two bits here, hope you don't mind. Both of you are edit warring this issue. That's not acceptable. Spatulli; IllaZilla is right on this issue. YOU saying this image represents the fashion doesn't make it so. Find secondary sources related to a particular image and use that. Please stop edit warring. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Devils Brigade (album)

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

File:The Boat That Rocked soundtrack cover.jpg

I want to ask you about uploading the image. At first, I uploaded the album cover as the page, file name "File:The Boat That Rocked OST.jpg" on October 2009. But you uploaded the new image again as the another file naming "File:The Boat That Rocked soundtrack cover.jpg", in spite of the existing cover image. Why did you do like this? If you wanted to change the other version of the cover image, you had better upload at the existing Wiki page of the image file "File:The Boat That Rocked OST.jpg". -- Kookyunii (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version with a new filename for 2 reasons: (1) The new version is smaller to comply with WP:NFCC (it's only as big as it appears in the article, no more) and is less blurry than the previous version; (2) The filneame "The Boat That Rocked soundtrack cover" is more descriptive than "The Boat That Rocked OST" (OST being somewhat record-collector slang) and it matches the form of the alternate cover image that I also uploaded (File:Pirate Radio soundtrack cover.jpg). There was nothing really wrong with your upload; you did it all correctly, I just felt that the image I found was less distorted and, since I was uploading a new version I took the opportunity to make the filename more descriptive (I've requested file name changes before...it takes a very long time to be carried out and it's simpler just to upload at a new filename and delete the old one). I'm sorry you received a bot notice; just ignore it, the old version is unused and will be deleted. You don't need to do anything about it. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I understood your answer. Have a good day. -- Kookyunii (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hed PE

Could you contribute to the discussion at Talk:Hed PE/Archive 1#Genre? Thank you. WTF (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hüsker Dü

I don't know. I think it's a fairly important aspect of the band. But whatever. I probably commented in the wrong paragraph. I'm sort of a Wikipedia newb, so I apologize if I break protocol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhollo (talk • contribs) 05:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. You didn't break any protocol, it just seemed out-of-place there (in a paragraph about their lyrics) and therefore didn't fit well. It also wasn't sourced, which is the most significant thing. But again, no worries, I know you meant well. The fact that Mould and Hart are/were both homosexual is something that's been commented on in third-party sources, as gay men were not common in hardcore/alternative bands at the time—I remember this being specifically addressed in Our Band Could Be Your Life—so it probably should be mentioned somewhere in the history section. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Boat That Rocked‎‎

I'm with you on this one. I thought the addition of the album covers was OTT when he did it but decided not to argue. I'll back you if it goes to talk or 3RR territory. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was pretty taken aback when he told me "don't make sweeping changes". --IllaZilla (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

predators redlink

I understand your point. However the screenwriter of "Predators" and several other noisy films is rather notable. It is a funny paradox that when several newspapers write about an "unknown" person, chances are high that he becomes known enough for wikipedia. Anyway, I am sure that you will be happy to argue against me just for fun of it. So I will simply find some time, put together a biostub about this guy and wait until it deleted :-) Cheers, Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to come off rude, and I'm sorry if my undoing of your edits made it seem so. I just don't see the point of creating redlinks if you don't have plans to create the target article anytime soon, or if the target topic isn't blatantly notable enough for an article. Naturally I'd rather you not create a stub bio knowing that it will probably be deleted; it'd be much preferrable if you'd gather a few sources and at least write something start-class to show the person's notability, then link to him from the relevant related articles. If you don't think you can create anything better than a deletable stub, why are you bothering to redlink him? If several newspapers have indeed written about him, then surely you can write something better than that. If not, well, the "he might become notable someday if people write about him" argument doesn't hold much weight: either sources have written about him, or they haven't. Whether he might be written about at some imagined point in the future isn't really relevant to the here & now. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN3

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit Warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Terrillja _talk 07:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, i've had it with you. You follow me around EVERYWHERE and revert ALL of my edits, and i'm tired of it. I tried so hard to be nice to you, even when you were making me so mad, and you don't even care, so i'm done. I'm tired of you not taking responsibility for what you do and putting EVERYTHING on me, you seem to think i'm the one that's always wrong and you're so godly and i'm a loser, i'm sick of being the one that's wrong, and i'm sick of you always starting fights with me. I can't tell you how many times i've tried to be nice to you and you just turn it in to a fight, you say that i'm the one that's starting the fights and pitching huge fits and i'm SICK OF IT! I'm so sick of fighting with you, i've said i don't want to argue with you anymore and you just keep pushing it and i've had it! You always acting like i'm stupid and i don't know what i'm doing, did you ever think that maybe you're hurting my feelings when you doubt my intelligence. And your recent edit on 21st Century Breakdown (a revert of my edit, as usual) saying "ever heard of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"", yeah, i've heard of it, i'm not stupid, how about "If it ain't wrong, don't revert it". Now look, i'm trying to stay civil right now, i'm not cursing or anything, i'm not calling you names, but i feel that i should say something to you because i really don't want to fight with you ANYMORE, i'm done. And look, we can be friends, or we can be enemies, which do you want? Think about it, i actually want to be friends. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a fight. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and if you can't respect core policies like civility and consensus then you're not going to last very long here. I have not been "following you around everywhere" or "reverting all of your edits". It just so happens that you have edited a number of article that are on my watchlist. If you compare your contribution history to my own, you will see that you have made edits to dozens of articles that I have never touched, so please stop accusing me of having some vendetta against you. I assure you, it exists only in your imagination. I have only reverted edits of yours that were detrimental to the articles in question, that caused technical errors, or that "fixed" things that were not in fact broken. Take 21st Century Breakdown for example: you changed nearly all of the links in the personnel section, when all of them were correct and worked perfectly fine. Go ahead, go to the article and click on the links. You will see that they are all correct, working links that take the reader to the intended destinations. They do not need to be tweaked in any way; they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. If you are tired of arguing the point, then you may simply choose not to respond: the choice to type a response and click "save" is entirely in your own hands. If Wikipedia is causing you that much stress, then I respectfully suggest that you take a break. Most of these reverts that you are so concerned about are small technical issues, not worth getting worked up over, and certainly not worth edit-warring. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah right, this is a fight, you're taken this way too far. You've ruined my life enough, you've caused so many problems between me and my family since they see everything that you say to me and they see how mean you are to me. And it's obvious that you have it out for me and have been following me everywhere, don't deny it! And you may not undo all of my edits, but you undo probably 90% of them. And you don't seem to care that you're hurting my feelings, you just accuse me of "pitching a huge fit" and i'm "whining" and i'm "childish" and i'm not "mature". You act like i'm a total retard and i'm not. And i am being civil right now, i'm not cursing at you or even being that mean to you, i'm trying to be nice to you and you're still mean to me. I've tried to make friends with you and you keep starting fights with me and i'm sick of you putting it all on me. And your most recent reply almost has NOTHING to do with what i said, you basically ignored me. And why did you undo my edit on 21st Century Breakdown? I don't want to be reminded of that and you don't care, did you ever think that maybe it embarrasses me? If you removed something that embarrassed you, i wouldn't just re-add it, it's obvious you don't care one bit about me. I'm so sick of arguing with you and you don't care, you keep pushing it farther and farther until i get so mad. And you know what, you're the one that's uncivil, you're the one that's immature, you're the one that's childish, you're the one that's pitching a huge hit and you're the one that's whining because i don't agree with you and that i don't do everything exactly like you. I might be being a little uncivil, but that's because YOU'VE BLOWN THE WHOLE SITUATION WAY OUT OF PROPORTION. And you claim that you've "tried to reach out for me on a number of occasions", but i've tried to be nice to you on a number of occasions and you're still mean to me no matter what i do. Can't you take responsibility for what you do? Why does it always have to be my problem, when you're obviously the one with the problem. I already feel like i'm stupid, i already feel like nobody likes me, i already feel like i don't do anything right and all you do is just MAKE IT WORSE! --Chickenguy13 (talk) 09:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Does Chickenguy13 strike anyone else as the sort of person who needs to be reminded constantly that he's too grown up to sit on Santa's knee? --86.133.228.14 (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Jupiter, don't you ever get tired of trolling me? It's been over 2 years...my activities can't be that interesting. Chickenguy turned out to be a sockpuppet anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Blink-182 chronology

Please do not change the Blink-182 chronology, due to their are studio album chronology, and non-studio album chronology. For the Greatest Hits click on the page and it would be under the non-studio album chronology. So if you change my edit from the Blink-182 (album) page chronology it would be stuffed up because of you. --Wooblz! (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It makes no sense to have a "studio chronology" and a "non-studio chronology". Blink-182 have all of 1 live album and 1 compilation album; multiple chronology chains are not only unnecessary, they impede navigation (which is the point of the chronology to begin with) and completely disrupt chronological flow. The chronologies were correct to begin with and should not have been changed. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see Template:Infobox album#Chronology: "For some artists it may be more appropriate to include all album types in one chain". Blink-182 do not have enough non-studio albums (EPs, live, comp, etc.) that it necessitates creating multiple chronology chains to keep track of it all. I have started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox album#Chronology to discuss the appropriateness of having multiple chronology chains for the infobox. Please feel free to comment there, and please stop edit-warring until the issue is resolved. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

hey why not you make a discussion page and we (and others) shall add to if because I don't know how to make one =P ps I'm not angry at you just going against you (not in a bad way) just yeah... you know what I mean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wooblz! (talk • contribs) 07:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I did create a discussion. I've linked it above and on your talk page, but here it is again: Template talk:Infobox album#Chronology. I've created it at the infobox talk page because the issue speaks to the template documentation and the infobox's general use. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hardcore vs. punk in the Fear article

In Wikipedia:Good articles/Arts like Rise Against it lists both genres. In other good articles like Green Day and Sum 41 it lists both punk rock and pop punk. This shows precedence that the Fear article should have both if sources conversely attribute them to both punk and hardcore.Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox musical artist#Genre advises to "aim for generality". Hardcore punk is, of course, a subgenre of punk rock. Therefore if they play hardcore punk they are playing punk rock by default. If their music spans more branches of punk than just hardcore, then we should simply put "punk rock". The sources I've read have all described them as a hardcore band (ie. American Hardcore: A Tribal History). Do you have other sources placing them in other subgenres of punk (ie. pop-punk, ska-punk, etc.)? --IllaZilla (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have time

If you have time and would like to comment on the recent tag placed on the Emo project pls seeWikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Turnover of music projects and the 'padding' of the WikiProject Music navbox/template.Moxy (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Warped Tour 2011

Warped Tour 2011 just got added apparently. Trying to keep rumors and lies off the page until people get some actual sources for stuff, so far it's not going so well. Please keep an eye on it if you have some time. Thanks. DX927 (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK the only thing that's been announced are the dates. No locations or acts yet that I've seen. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

blink-182 lineups

but that's not what the album booklets says, if I (menaing the official album booklet list) don't gets to choose then who does? think before you chnage next time... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wooblz! (talk • contribs) 09:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought perfectly well about it, thank you. It makes little difference what order they're listed in in the CD booklets; this doesn't represent some sort of "official order of the members" (that is, you're not legally bound to refer to them in that order every time you talk or write about them). The "personnel" lists don't establish any sort of primacy; that is, by putting DeLonge first we're not saying that he's more important than Hoppus...for whatever reason it's simply common with rock bands to refer to the players in the order vocals→guitar→bass→drums. For many arists where the lineup hasn't changed much over the years, we often simply list the members alphabetically in the interest of neutrality (see most of the Green Day articles, for example).

At any rate, I don't particularly care what order they're listed in; I'm much more annoyed by your hidden-text warning: "Official line up order: DO NOT CHANGE"... (A) As I've stated above, there is no such thing as an "official lineup order", and (B) you do not have the authority to declare what other editors may or may not change. You could choose a more polite, less dictatorial message such as "as listed in album credits" to convey the idea. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean and it's not in order of important it's in by first name to last name eg. see Linkin Park, but in Blink-182 case it's done by first name not last name... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wooblz! (talk • contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

People are generally alphabetized by surname, not first name (see for example Category:Living people). I'm not sure what you mean by the Linkin Park example, as it is listed by surname and not first name...look closer: Bennington→Bourdon→Delson→Farrell→Hahn→Shinoda. If we were to arrange Blink-182 in the same manner it would go Barker→DeLonge→Hoppus. Personally I don't like this, at least in the Blink-182 infobox, as Hoppus & DeLonge are the founding members & Barker didn't join until ~6 years later when he replaced Raynor (Template:Infobox musical artist#Current_members instructs to list them in the order that they joined the group). Anyway, as I said I have no problem with listing them in the order that they appear in the album credits...that seems a perfectly neutral way to do it if they are listed in the same order on every release. But you need to be less dictatorial about it. Leave a more polite hidden message such as "as listed in album credits" rather than the dictatorial "Official line up order: DO NOT CHANGE". This sort of thing is pretty common in film articles where we often leave hidden notes in Cast sections to the effect of "in order of appearance" or "listed in billing order". --IllaZilla (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and will you please do me a favor by signing your posts, and starting new topics at the bottom of the page rather than the top? Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Total Clarity

I'd appreciate it if you look this up. It is confirmed in the liner notes of an OFFICIAL Fat Wreck compilation album. I even found the scan of the vinyl liners. 'on the cards' merely referred to Tom's confirmation, saying that "the next thing in line".

Bobby: I know in an interview you did with PunkNews you said you were working on a demos album of Searching For A Former Clarity, kind of like you did for the Eternal Cowboy. Is that still in the works too?

Tom: Yeah; that’ll probably actually be out maybe early next year. That’s more of the next thing in line as opposed to Vivida Vis and all that stuff. [19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by AarnKrry (talk • contribs) 21:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's nice, but it's still speculative ("speculative" here having the meaning of "has been talked about in passing but an actual album has not been confirmed or announced"). At this point there is not enough confirmed, verifiable information about the release to warrant starting a section on it. When Against Me! or Fat Wreck Chords actually releases some details—such as a track listing, album art, a release date (and not just "2011", an actual date)—then it'll warrant encyclopedic coverage. Remember that Wikipedia is not the news; it is not our mission to report on late-breaking topical items or future releases that do not yet have concrete, verifiable details. See also WP:HAMMER. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. Just revert back to it when the time comes, unless it isn't good enough, as usual.· AarnKrry · _{Words speak louder than actions} · 21:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Blink-182. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

IllaZilla (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I believe that this block is inappropriate. The blocking admin claims that I have been "edit warring at Blink-182 and related articles", however I have made only 2 reverts at Blink-182: [10] and [11] (along with 2 other unrelated edits [12] [13]), and I have made no more than a single edit to any other Blink-182 related article in the last 24 hours. So I have not violated 3RR, nor do I see where there is an edit-war. The editor whom I reverted (twice at Blink-182 and once on the related album articles), User:Wooblz!, has also been blocked, though he has only made 1 revert at Blink-182 and none at the related articles. As you can see in the above thread #blink-182 lineups we are engaged in discussing the issue, per WP:BRD. I believe that blocking both of us is unnecessary and inappropriate, when we are engaged in good-faith discussion and there have only been 2 reverts to the article in question. IllaZilla (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were strongly admonished for edit-warring less than two weeks ago. WP:3RR is not a licence permitting up to three reverts within 24 hours. It is disruptive to treat it as such, and it is disruptive to do anything other than exclusively engage in talk-page discussion (ie not discuss while reverting at the same time) Mkativerata (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Reviewing admin will want to see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive144#User:Wooblz! and User:IllaZilla reported by Terrillja talk (Result: no action) for a history of the edit war. Because this was an edit war that I admonished both of them about before, and where IllaZilla admitted fault, I have chosen to make a block here. I admit it was more difficult with IllaZilla than Wooblz!; nevertheless, IllaZilla clearly stepped over the BRD boundary; I was lenient about 3RR last time, but I also expected the edit warring to stop. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(Not to pile on, but...) Also part of the reasoning for my block is, as Mkativerata states above, treating 3RR as a license to revert exactly 3 times isn't appropiriate, which I see a lot of in your recent history. I should have clarified that in the block message, apologies. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

While I can clearly do nothing to change your mind on the matter, I should like to point out two things:

1. The AN discussion, while clearly illustrating bad judgement on my part (which I fully admitted—and still admit—to), concerned a different matter: a dispute over the use of the "chronology" field in {{Infobox album}}. The "edit war" in question here concerns what I believe was an inappropriate hidden-text message that User:Wooblz! was inserting into articles: "Official line up order: DO NOT CHANGE". As far as I am aware, we as editors are not allowed to dictate what others may or may not edit on Wikipedia, with the exception of disruptive actions which result in protection and blocks. That was the reason for my revert, and I explained this to Wooblz! both in my edit summary and in the above discussion (#blink-182 lineups). I point this out to show that this was not a continuation of some previous dispute; it was a separate issue entirely.
2. I am fully aware that 3RR is not a license to revert 3 times in 24 hours, but neither neither Wooblz! nor I did so. Due to the close-call I recently had at AN, and wary that it should happen again, I had no intention whatsoever of reverting a third time. If Wooblz! had continued to revert, I would have pursued other avenues of resolving the issue. I believe that Wooblz! was aware of this too, and thus—following BRD—we discussed the issue here on my talk page. The chronology of events was thus:
   • 08:59, 29 November 2010 Wooblz! made his edit
   • 09:10, 29 November 2010 I reverted
   • 09:28, 29 November 2010 Wooblz! raised the issue on my talk page
   • 09:30, 29 November 2010 Wooblz! restored his edit
   • 09:36, 29 November 2010 Wooblz! replaced his entire talk page with thousands of repetitions of the word "POO"
   • 18:25, 29 November 2010 I responded to Wooblz! on my talk page
   • 18:27, 29 November 2010 I reverted a second time
   • 18:49, 29 November 2010 Wooblz! responded on my talk page
   • 18:53, 29 November 2010 Wooblz! reverted a second time
   • 19:39, 29 November 2010 Wooblz! reverted his own edit

I fully agree that 3RR is not a license to perform 3 reverts, but as evidenced above only 2 reverts were performed by either party. I am not pointing this out to try to get off on a technicality, I am pointing it out to illustrate that I was not trying to game the system (by performing exactly 3 reverts). After 2 reverts each and a civil discussion, the matter appeared to have been resolved. I believe from their above comments that Magog and Mkativerata are saying that Wooblz! and I should observe a one revert rule. Is that correct? --IllaZilla (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a licence to revert twice either. You're not under 1RR, but the pattern here was of edit-warring. The chronology shows that each of you followed up a talk page comment with an immediate revert, as if to say "now I've responded I am reverting". That's edit-warring - you need to try to allow for the discussion reach a resolution before continuing a chain of reverts.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I can accept that. I should not have reverted while discussion was underway (Wooblz! shouldn't have either, but that doesn't excuse me). I likely wouldn't have done so, but I viewed his hidden-text message "DO NOT CHANGE" as rather egregious with respect to CIVIL & OWN and firmly believed that it was inappropriate for it to remain. I would hope that such a message would not be permissible. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes the comment is inappropriate (I note Woolbz! has been blocked as well). --Mkativerata (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, while I have no choice but to acquiesce to your assessment, I must say it doesn't sit well with me. If you agree that the text I was removing was inappropriate, then it stands to reason that it should have been removed, by myself or some other editor, regardless of any reply that may or may not have come from Wooblz!. It would seem, then, that I'm being punished out of process, simply because I didn't wait for a reply from Wooblz! before removing the inappropriate text a second time. For the record, Wooblz! isn't the greatest communicator: we're talking about an editor who, immediately after his first revert (at 9:36 on 29 Nov.), replaced his entire talk page with thousands of repetitions of the word "POO" (and this is an editor who's been here for 2½ years). You'll understand if I don't hold out a lot of hope for civil, reasoned discussion getting very far with Wooblz!. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

IllaZilla (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

original request is above

Accept reason:

Alright, I guess I see the reasoning in not trying to communicate with someone whose discussion works like that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. For my part, I recognize that I'm a bit quick to revert and that I sometimes skirt (or even overstep) the line of edit-warring. I resolve to be more conscious of this in the future, and to seek discussion first. I'm a bit disappointed in myself that, after over 4½ years, I've gotten myself into so much hot water lately (2 blocks & an AN in the last 4 months, after such a long clean history). I think it's a sign that my Wikistress level may be too high, and that I may need to reduce the amount of time spent editing WP or even take a break. --IllaZilla (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Understandable; I also think your contributions here have been really valuable and I hate to chase you off. It's easy to get so used to editing here, you gain a bit of a higher class "I've been here for a while I don't have to put up with this" snobbishness - and you would be far from the only one (I've probably done it). I noticed a similar effect myself at my last job... something which originally horrified me, I later came to defend morally. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)