User talk:IllaZilla/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art

First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng {chat} 23:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File:The Mr T Experience And The Women Who Love Them Special Addition cover.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Mr T Experience And The Women Who Love Them Special Addition cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 06:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Out of consensus edit

Regarding Black Flag (band), you need to understand your change of the lead sentence is totally out of consensus. You are the only user who wants this change. Every time you make the edit, users revert it back. So far nobody has supported your change of in talk. You need to build a consensus first and then make the change when you have that consensus. See WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS. --Oakshade (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You can stop quoting consensus to me; I'm well aware of the policy. The only ones who have reverted my change are you and an anonymous IP (which wasn't a revert but actually a couple of unique edits). The only real resistance to this change has been from you. This is verified by the article history. I repeat: The only one who has actually reverted any of my edits has been you. I hardly think that qualifies as consensus in any way. We have an RFC on the talk page now; let's wait and see if we can get more discussion that will actually generate a consensus, rather than just battling back and forth. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You made this change and then proceeded to revert every other editor who reverted your change while no edited supported your change. As for your bizarre claim that I'm the only editor that reverted your change, here's a reminder of the edit history showing how completely opposite of reality that is:

[1][2] [3][4]

And yet another editor who indicated very clearly in talk they don't agree with your change - [5]

That's 3 established editors and 2 anon editors have all disagreed with your edit and nobody has supported it. You are completely out of WP:CONSENSUS with this. --Oakshade (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are once again ignoring the fact that I was not the one who first made this change. Let met break it down for you, again, from the history:

1. [6] - Tim010987 changes the lead sentence from "hardcore punk band" to "rock band" (16:21, 14 December 2008).
2. [7] - About 2 weeks later, Tim changes his mind and changes it from "rock band" to "punk band". No one had reverted Tim's initial change in those 2 weeks (20:40, 26 December 2008).
3. [8] - Having agreed with Tim's initial change due to discussions we'd previously had elsewhere, I revert it back to "rock band" (22:52, 26 December 2008).
4. [9] - Tim changes it back to "punk band" (04:09, 27 December 2008).
5. [10] - I revert back to "rock band" again. Note that during this whole process I've been the only one giving any explanations for my edits, via edit summaries (06:07, 27 December 2008).
6. [11] - A week later, IP 71.135.43.72 changes it from "rock band" to "Punk Rock Band" without explanation (08:32, 3 January 2009).
7. [12] - I revert the IP and go back to "rock band", per my previous reasonings and because Punk Rock Band is a redlink (09:01, 3 January 2009).
8. [13] - Another IP, 70.44.166.171, changes it to "Hardcore Punk Rock band" without explanation (05:52, 6 January 2009).
9. [14] - I revert again, per previous reasonings and because, again, "Hardcore Punk Rock band" is a redlink (05:55, 6 January 2009).
10. [15] - You change it to "punk band" with the explanation "Seminal punk rock band. Arguably the definition of 'punk' " (22:36, 6 January 2009). Shortly after, you comment in the talk page discussion [16], which was actually about the infobox, not the lead.
11. [17] - I revert back to "rock band", because "once again, we are aiming for generality in the lead sentence. 2 sentences later it mentions that they are widely considered one of the first hardcore punk bands" (03:58, 7 January 2009).
12. [18] - You revert back to "punk band" claiming "Per consensus in talk", when in fact there is no discussion of the lead on the talk page. Note that at this point 5 different editors have changed the wording between 5 different variations (hardcore punk band, rock band, punk band, punk rock band, hardcore punk rock band). Hardly demonstrative of a consensus (06:59, 7 January 2009).
13. [19] - I revert you because "the discussion on the talk page was about the infobox, not the lead sentence. again, per WP:LEAD we are aiming for generality. punk is mentioned not 2 sentences later" (07:15, 7 January 2009).
14. [20] - You revert to "punk rock band" again (07:20, 7 January 2009).
15. [21] - I revert you again, asking you to WP:BRD and pointing out precedents in Nirvana (band) & Ramones (07:56, 7 January 2009).
16. [22] - You revert again (08:12, 7 January 2009).
17. [23] - I revert again, asking you to show me where your asserted consensus has been established. At this point you & I are in a full edit war & are both breaking WP:3RR.
18. [24] - B full-protects the article for a week (03:52, 8 January 2009).
19. [25] - I initate a discussion on the talk page. (06:55, 8 January 2009). You are the only one who replies [26].
20. [27] - You launch an RfC on the talk page (00:10, 9 January 2009). I reply [28], you reply [29], Satch69 replies [30], I reply to Satch [31]. At this point we've only gotten 3 opinions.
21. [32] - As soon as the protection expires, you change it back to your preferred "punk rock band" claiming "very clear consensus in talk and edit history". Note that there is no "very clear consensus" because at this point we've still had 5 editors changing to 5 variations in wording, and are in the middle of an RFC at which only you, me, and one other editor have yet commented (00:37, 16 January 2009).
22. [33] - I revert back to "rock band" per the above reasons (no "clear consensus", ongoing RFC, etc.) (00:47, 16 January 2009).

At this point I'm willing to admit that we've both been very stubborn and broken a few rules. But I'm tired of you repeatedly calling this "your [my] change" and saying "every single editor has reverted your change", because neither is true. It was Tim010987's change initially, though I did agree strongly with it. Yes, he changed his mind 2 weeks later, but he changed it to something different from what it was originally; he didn't just revert himself. The IPs didn't revert, they changed it to different variations that were both redlinks. Tim hasn't edited the article in about 3 weeks, and hasn't participated in either of the subsequent talk page discussions. So other than Satch69's comment in the RfC, this is still just you and me fighting and isn't getting us any closer to an actual consensus. I would like to see Satch respond to my comment in the RfC, but what I'd like even more is to see other editors get involved. Failing that, I strongly feel that it is disengenuous to claim that there is "very clear consensus", because there clearly isn't. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that you've admitted in great detail that you are the only person supporting the lead-in sentence change from "punk band" to "rock band", please finally stop ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and reverting every user who doesn't agree with your change. You have failed to gain any consensus for your desired change. --Oakshade (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, not my change, but a change I supported and continue to support. And again, there's no clear consensus; the purpose of the RfC is to guage consensus or form a new consensus. And again, you're the only one who seems to be in such an uproar about it. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Being the "only one who seems to be in such an uproar about it" doesn't in any manner mean that your edits are completely out of consensus and you have so far failed to gain any support for your desired change. The purpose of the current RfC, as clearly stated, is to gauge whether your change and steadfast reverting of anyone who reverted your change was made following WP:CONSENSUS or not.--Oakshade (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm tired of running around in circles on this. You may enjoy it, but I'm over it. I'm willing to wait for the RfC to play out, see where the consensus lies, and go from there. In the meantime, put down the stick and let's keep discussion of this topic where it belongs: on the article's talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying, get over it. You are completely outside of consensus on this. You are more than welcome to attempt to gain a consensus for you desired change on the talk page. But in the meantime, you can't WP:OWN an article and steadfastly revert every other user who disagrees with you, especially if you are the only user who desires this change. We don't have to agree with consensus, but we must respect it.--Oakshade (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Earth A.D. Crossover Thrash

I really think Earth A.D. is part of the early crossover thrash items you had in this time, though the term "Crossover Thrash" wasn't invented. When you hear songs like "Death comes ripping", it is even more thrashy than most of some "crossover thrash" bands of this time, like Suicidal Tendencies.

Not convinced ?

Hear "Death comes ripping", now hear "Law for the rich" of "The exploited" of the album "Beat the bastard" (that no one can deny it is "crossover thrash"). Isn't it some similarities ? You will say "yeah, of course, but the second one is speeder". But if you listen to every crossover thrash of the misfits time, of course they weren't so fast. Arnsy (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This all sounds like your own opinion to me, and thus it's original research which is expressly prohibited on Wikipedia. If you want to make a case for Earth A.D. being "crossover thrash", you need to cite one or more reliable secondary sources to verify your claims. Your own opinion, via comments like "I really think..." and "no one can deny...", is irrelevant to an encyclopedia. I have never seen a source that describes Earth A.D. as "crossover thrash", so unless you can present some I'm going to have to insist you not add it. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Still being a skank eh?

Still trying to insist that you are always right to everyone eh??? This is the rule, obey or I will have you banned and have you dealt by with the law. *rolls eyes* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.24.206.138 (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? I don't think we've ever interacted on Wikipedia before. If you're referring to my cleanup of Talk:Emo, is there something specific you have a problem with? All I did was set up automatic archiving and cleanup the format...and no one's complained in the month since I did it. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My IP adress changes all the time. Idiot. "This is how Wikipedia goes. No detailed plot summaries. And no, I don't care if you say it is not actually THAT detailed. Because you must obey me and the rules of Wikipedia. Disobey and I will have you banned." *rolls eyes again* Seriously, just because a plot summary contains the specific details of each level doesn't mean it is inappropriate. *rolls eyes for third time* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.24.206.179 (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to remain civil in your interactions with other editors. Thank you. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see you're on about the Alien vs. Predator computer games again. I had you confused with someone else. Anyway, I highly suggest you drop the stick and let it be, because that horse ain't gettin' any deader. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded, calling an editor a "skank" or "idiot" is not constructive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Count Olaf

Since you've seem to run in with Jupiter on OR with Voldemort and Hannibal, I was wondering if you could help me out with the article for Count Olaf--he's constantly adding an section about his characteristics despite being told that it constitutes as being OR. I've even attempted to show him twice now to look at Randall_Flagg#Characterization for him to model it off of but he's ignored that.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The guy has nothing but contempt for the WP:NOR policy and an ego the size of a zeppelin. Believe me, he's not going to accept advice or guidance anytime soon. My advice is just revert, warn, and if it continues move on to more formal channels such as AN/I or RfC. I'll do what I can at the Olaf article, but I suspect it will just end the way his pattern usually does: he'll give up, but come back a month or so later and re-add it. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Your disrupted out of consensus edits of Misfits (band)‎

Regarding your insistence that the lead be changed from a "punk" band to a "rock" band, nobody agrees with you. Please stop editing completely out of consensus and reverting every user who disagrees with you. Wikipedia also goes by reliable sources. Every reliable source considers this a "punk" band. Your initiated discussion on the genre and failed to gain any consensus for your desired change in the lead sentence. We might have to do yet another RfC. --Oakshade (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to initiate another RfC, I will respect whatever consensus comes out of it. But you are not correct in saying that there is no consensus at the moment for it to say "rock band". I made that change over 2 months ago [34], so there has been plenty of time for it to be discussed. It has been changed a few times, nearly always by anonymous IPs who leave no explanation. Tim010987 and I had a discussion about the lead sentence on the talk page, and he agreed that the first sentence should read "rock band" and added a hidden message to that effect: [35]. Also note that I am not the only one who has reverted it to "rock band" after some of these IP changes: Peter Fleet did the same a few weeks ago [36]. You are the only registered editor who has changed it from "rock", and the only one who has bothered to leave an edit summary explaining your reasoning (for which I thank you). It has been over a month since Tim and I reached agreement on the talk page, and almost 2 months since that discussion started, and no one has voiced a dissenting opinion until you did today. I think that 40 days of a discussion standing with an agreement reached, and no dissenting opinions voiced, constitutes consensus. I see from the discussion now that Wiki libs also agrees with the wording "rock". The reasoning I have for this is that (as you can see in the infobox) there are a number of sources which describe the band's 1990s material as being much more heavy metal than punk rock. Since heavy metal is a different subgenre of rock music entirely from punk rock, it makes more sense to say "rock" first and then elaborate on the specific subgenres/styles in subsequent sentences. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

After you made the change two months ago, it was reverted several times by 8 users (6 anon and 2 regisered) but on each occasion you reverted back to your choice [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]. Tim010987 has indicated very clearly he believes the genre in for this band be "American punk band."[45] I do see one user has since indicated he agrees with you. --Oakshade (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to sound crass, but I place very little stock in drive-by IP edits which do nothing but change the genre with no explanation, sometimes removing references for ones that they don't agree with (this has happened several times in the last month, though in the infobox rather than the lead). When an edit consists of nothing but changing the genre with no explanation for the change, I normally revert on sight. A genre change with an explanatory edit summary is much more likely to have some grounds for the change other than just the editor's POV, and of course a discussion on the talk page, where we are searching for sources and actively trying to come to consensus, trumps any of these one-off IP edits with no summaries or sources. Also, because of the dyamic nature of most IPs, there is no way of knowing whether each IP edit is a unique user or if several of them are the same person (several of the IPs are within the same range).

As for Tim010987's edit, note that this was several days before he and I discussed the issue on the talk page. After discussion, he not only agreed that it should say "rock band", he then added hidden text to the lead explaing why it should be so, then did the same to numerous other articles (I won't list them all, as there are something like 60 or more...check his contributions on December 15 and 16 to see most of them) and asked me and the Punk Wikiproject to help him change more. He also advocated the use of "rock band" to WesleyDodds. He seems to have changed his mind since then, but for a while he was extremely enthusiastic about making the lead sentence say "rock band", and note that he has not taken it upon himself to change it to anything else in the time since. As for this fellow, his changes were largely redundant (listing punk rock in addition to hardcore punk & horror punk) and were mostly confined to genre-warring in the infobox, which has since been sorted out & solved with references.

The bottom line is that the "rock band" wording in the lead sentence was discussed, had good logic behind it, and had consensus on the talk page. Several times in my edit summaries I directed editors to use the talk page – [46] [47] – Tim was the only one who did, and after that discussion he was very keen on it saying "rock band". Of the editors who have actually given some explanation for their opinion, via either edit summaries or the talk page, you are the only one so far who has made a case against that wording. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there is nothing wrong with anon editors making legitimate non-vandalizing edits. In fact, studies show that most of the content on Wikipedia is by anon users. As for Tim010987, you conveniently left out that he made last made it explicitly clear he changed his position and now prefers "punk rock" in the into. [48]. You're only showing old edits. Any way you look at it, its you and now one other user who wants the intro "rock band" without the word "punk". --Oakshade (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but I did not leave out Tim's change of opinion. Look at my previous comment and click on the link that says "changed his mind". Also note immediately after that, where I said "note that he has not taken it upon himself to change it to anything else in the time since." Also, I did not say there was anything wrong with anon editors making edits per se, but if they are making a substantive change such as altering the genre in the infobox or lead sentence, there has to be some kind of explanation given by either edit summary or talk page comment. Why? Because this is a subject which has been discussed on the talk page, and about which an agreement was reached. Note that on several occasions these anon editors changed the genres in the infobox without explanation, removing references that supported genres they didn't happen to agree with ([49] [50] [51] [52]). That's highly POV and definitely worth an immediate revert. It's the same for the lead sentence. If no reason is given for the change, what reason is there to change it? None but POV.

I am not the only one who prefers the wording "rock band": there is me, there is Peter Fleet, and there is Wiki Libs. Any way you look at it, you are the only one giving any kind of reason for why it shouldn't say "rock". Clearly there is no consensus on this yet, and we need to continue discussing it on the article's talk page until such a consensus is reached, instead of spinning our wheels here...again. As I said before, I am willing to defer to any consensus that is reached on the article's talk page, just as I did with Black Flag, even if that consensus is against the wording I prefer. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't involve yourself on pages...

...about which you know absolutely nothing. Stick with your favorite music and teen sci-fi. Are you a musician or writer? I seriously doubt it. I know very little about wiki, but based on very quick research, I believe you to be nothing more than big pain in the ass for people attempting to use the site as it was intended. Perhaps that's your objective. If not, what are your motives in destroying the work of others? You have no special expertise or talent. Who appointed you? No one, I gather. What are the thoughts and rationale (if any) which you believe enable you to trespass on the work of others? You claim splendid "re-writes" of articles, while every other attempted contributor complains about your ingrate mentality and hijack of public pages. You must be most proud of yourself. I think a large number of others see you as little more than a selfish cyber-squatter, with absolutely nothing to offer but web thuggery! Stop!Learner001 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Mind telling me which articles you're talking about? This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so I, you, and anyone else are free to edit whatever articles we please, as long as we act in good faith to improve them. Unless you can be specific about which actions of mine you're upset about, then don't bother to leave ridiculous rants. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Re your edit summary here[53]: "if you don't mind, i'd like to let the bot do its job as it takes care of chronological sorting & header autoformatting automatically." There isn't any reason not to auto archive if page clearing is desired. 0 threads left should really only be used for personal pages. Also, your summary is a bit incorrect. The bot doesn't do any "chronological sorting" it just sticks the new archives at the end, same as I did, nor does it do any header formatting as there is no formatting to do. It literally just cuts and pastes.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake then. I've just run into confusion before in situations where the bot is operating and people are simultaneously manually archiving. For consistency's sake, I thought I'd set it to minthreadsleft=0, let it clear out the old stuff, then remove the parameter. But I guess either way works. It does autoformat the headers, though [54], it just wouldn't have in this case because they've all been formatted already. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, its fine to do both, especially where the bot misses something or the convo is over but still causing issues. True, it does that, but it isn't a necessary or super important thing. Either one works :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I undid this edit here[55]. There really is no need to split that into a reference/notes section, just use a named ref instead. It isn't a book, so there are no specific pages that need referencing so the reference will always be the same. That would be in keeping with the style already in use in the article, which should be retained per the citation guidelines, unless there is editor consensus to change to another style. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of diffs, in addition to the Sci Fi Channel, some network called Sleuth (TV channel) or something to that effect has been airing the mini-series during this past week or so. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Its an NBC cable channel that airs its reruns. Any source for it airing Tin Man (which seems odd...though I guess maybe because RHI aka Hallmark did a lot of stuff for them to?) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the refs/notes, I was following the format I used in Alien (film): If I'm using the feature as a general ref, but I'm going to be citing maybe different segments or individual persons from it, then it makes more sense to have it as a separate ref and then just use a shorter version for the individual cites. Plus I wasn't adding a named ref at the moment, so I needed somewhere to put it. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't see any purpose or usefulness is splitting a ref like that when it is the same reference. Its like citing an episode, basically, and it just clutters up the bottom of the articles and makes references unweildy. Notes, IMHO, suck in general, and really should only be used for books extensively cited, not a couple of references from a making of feature. Also, as noted, using that format requires consensus for that article since it is not the currently established format in use on the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

See here and check Friday, Jan 23 at 9:00 PM, for example. The other episodes were aired earlier. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty...though, in the end it doesn't matter. We generally don't note reruns of a series or miniseries. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you on this one. There is plenty of precedent for using both styles in an article, ie. with books when citing from different pages, and it makes sense to do the same when citing from a feature with multiple stand-alone chapters or from which one will be quoting/citing numerous different persons, particularly when it is a reference that is going to be extensively cited in the article (as this feature probably will). I don't really think it requires consensus, either: For one thing, as I point out, there is precedent for using both styles in a single article for the purpose of using multiple footnotes from the same source. For another, this is an article that is actively being worked on to provide additional real-world, referenced information. The friggin' thing only has a dozen citations in it already, so we can worry about coming to concensus on formating issues after such content is added. I'm trying to do good-faith article improvement here, and it's frustrating when my edits are undone within minutes due to minor incoveniences like preferring a different citation format. I think you're being a bit trigger-happy with the undo button, and if you don't mind I think I'm just going to work on it in userspace for a while until I have a good chunk of content to plug into the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And folks, can we please move the convo about reruns to the article talk page? It's not really related to the edits I'm making. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does require consensus per the citation guidelines which very clearly note that one should not change the formatting of references without consensus. Just because it is used does not make it perfect nor the only one that can be used, nor does it mean it is the best to use here. You like the style, fine, but that does not mean that you can just change it your preferred format without the consensus of others interested in the article. Per WP:CITE#HOW "You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one. Where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected" and further down on the page "Once a style is selected for an article it is inappropriate to change an article to another unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style" so yes, consensus is required. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:CITE#How to present citations. Note WP:CITESHORT. That's what I'm going for here. This is a perfectly acceptable and appropriate way to use this type of reference, and does not change nor contradict the format currently being used for the other citations in the article. I did not change any formats, I added a new citation, in a format appropriate for the source and for the footnotes that I plan to make. This complements the existing citations and can be used in addition to them, it does not alter nor contradict them. I'm working on using this ref in userspace right now; if it turns out that it works better in the footnote style, then I'll go back to that. But at the moment it's looking like the short citation style may work best. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but one last quick note, if you catch tonight's episode of Robot Chicken, they spoof The Wizard of Oz. Have a nice nighT! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

← Excellent! I love Robot Chicken! --IllaZilla (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ramones website

Thanks for catching that. Do you happen to know if there is an official Ramones site? The URL we've been representing in both the infobox and at the bottom in "External links"--www.ramones.com--appears to be dead.DocKino (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, just noticed that myself. I'm not actually certain that there is an official Ramones website, given that the band broke up in '96, but I'll do some looking around. officialramones.com is, I believe, a site run by Arturo Vega, so there is the possibility that it's as close to an "official" site as we're likely to get. But at the very least we'd have to present it as such ("Ramonesworld, a site run by Arturo Vega" or somesuch) rather than presenting it as the band's "offical website", despite the name in the URL. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Warped Comps

I really can't see any justification for collapsing and hiding the tracklistings for these releases, so have restored them to expanded format again. I agree with the new tabular format, good job on doing that, but I really can't see any need to hide the tracklisting on such short articles. The tracklisting is the main information in such an article, and whether the articles were longer or not, the tracklist remains integral and should always be visible. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I don't see why we should hide this content? Nouse4aname (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Because they are very long tables, and at least on the computers I use (which all use IE) they do not automatically adjust width-wise to compensate for the infobox. The lack of other content in the articles is a reason to add more content, not expect the tracklist to be the sole content of the article. The whole point of the show/hide feature is to ease readability in cases where there are multiple discs and the tracklists are very long (see for example The Misfits (box set)), as is the case with these comps. In fact, I was thinking of suggesting a merge where we put all the comps in one main article about the series, and have all the tracklists in that article in show/hide format, because I really don't see how these stand-alones are going to pass WP:MUSIC since they rarely even get reviewed. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I use Safari and there is no problem with resizing. I would agree with a merge, as you say, they probably don't pass WP:MUSIC, and if they were to be merged, obviously collapsed listings would be better. If you think that the overlap with the infobox is an issue, go ahead and collapse them again (do they still overlap when you expand them out though? - Seems like a bit of a flaw with some browsers?!). Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a combination of a browser flaw and a flaw in the template. It's hard to describe in words, but basically when collapsed it forces it down below the infobox. Not too pretty, and even when it's expanded it's squashed horizontally. At home I have a widescreen monitor and I don't have this problem, but on a normal size monitor it doesn't really look good either way. The only solution I can think of would be to add enough content to the article to force the tracklist section down below the infobox. It just looked less messy to me to have it collapsed, but I'm okay with it for now until a possible merge is discussed. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Punknews

Cool. Thanks for the tip IllaZilla. --BlackMath77 (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving the Alien Wikiproject to a task force

Hello IllaZilla, there was proposal added by Bignole to move the Alien Wikiproject to a task force. see here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Alien#Task_force_merger. Just thought to let you know since you created started the Alien Wikiproject. --Gman124 ^talk 05:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You've broken WP:3RR by reverting yet again the intro sentence to Misfits (band) article. Please don't revert 3 times in a 24 hour period. --Oakshade (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to count again. I only changed it twice [56] [57] and the second time was not a revert, but part of a larger edit to the lead following the addition of the Style section. The references used in that section clearly discuss how the band has moved further away from punk since their 1996 reformation. The fact that Allmusic still categorizes the albums under hardcore punk does not have as much significance as the reviewer himself stating that "the latter-day Misfits are much more heavy metal based than in their earlier work – as their punk roots have all but been erased". But since you insist on placing so much weight on Allmusic's bullet-point genres, note also that they categorize all 3 albums of that era as "heavy metal" in addition to hardcore punk and "American underground" (whatever that is): [58] [59] [60] (BtW, that's 3 Allmusic sources mentioning other genres, not just one). Heavy metal is not part of punk rock, ergo a better umbrella term to describe their overall sound, incorporating all eras of the band, is "rock". I'm actually engaged in finding references and building a style section, something the article has long lacked and would help quell this dispute. Where are the sources you've found? Have you contributed to the article in any way other than to push your POV regarding the lead sentence? You keep claiming that "all sources refer to this band as primarily a punk band", yet I've just provided some that describe an whole era of their career as primarily metal. Unless you're prepared to find all sources in existence, your claim doesn't hold. When you're referring to a band's entire career, and that career encompasses multiple genres of rock music that are not merely subgenres of each other, "rock" is a better descriptive term to lead off with. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The count is three. [61][62][63]. WP:3RR refers to the specific content that's being reverted. Just because you made other unrelated edits to the page doesn't negate the fact you reverted the same content three times in a 24 hour period. --Oakshade (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That is false. In the second edit you linked [64] I did not change the lead at all. In all of my edits on Feb. 11 I only changed the lead twice. You either need to actually read the diffs you're linking, or practice counting. My other edits were not "unrelated". The whole point of my edits was to add a style section explaining, with references, how the band's later material moved away from punk rock, which is why I believe the opening sentence of the article should refer to them as a "rock" band since their repertoire consists of more styles of rock music than just punk rock. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your accusatin of vandalism

Regarding your personal attack accusing me of vandalism[65], if you honestly feel this was vandalism and not making a groundless personal attack, then report the vandalism immediately at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Otherwise, stop accusing me of being a vandal.--Oakshade (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack against you. After your edits there was another edit by User:Darkzip3 which added "therefore the misfits suck ass without danzig and any new singer sucks dicks". Obvious vandalism, and I reverted it along with restoring the revisions to the lead section that I'd made last night. I might have made it clearer in my edit summary, but I'll ask you to please actually read the diffs you're posting before clicking save, and before falsely accusing me of making personal attacks. If you had done so, you would have seen the obvious vandalism that I was referring to, which was not one of your edits. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I do stand corrected about that other "misfits suck ass" content. You had correctly reverted it, but it was also reverted with my edit [66] at the same time and I didn't see that specific one sentence vandalism in that diff. Thank you for clarifying. --Oakshade (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I probably should have made it clearer in my edit summary, but those summaries have limited space. I also apologize if my previous response sounded snarky at all; I'm trying to keep a cool head even though we are still in disagreement about the wording. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Rocket from the Crypt

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You can do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:

[[Category:Alternative rock groups]]
[[Category:Parent2]]

Contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Was aware of this, but was in a hurry & didn't know which parent cats to add. Figured someone else would know. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by A Nobody (talk • contribs) 18:58, 22 February 2009

Forever Young (Alphaville song)

Remember WP:OWN. I am completely correct about the song's useage at funerals. I have been here since 2002 and i am more then prepared to use my seniority to have you reprimanded. Paul Austin (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about seniority, and I seriously doubt you would be able to "have [me] reprimanded" on the basis of seniority alone (though you are welcome to try). 1 source is not enough to make the claim that the song has "been played at funerals of people that died at a young age", as this implies that it is some kind of widespread phenomenon. Does one source somehow indicate that "Forever Young" is a common song to play at funerals of young people? No. You are giving undue weight to this trivial piece of information. You would need a source saying that this is a common song to play at the funerals of young people in order for that information to be significant to an encyclopedia article, otherwise it's just irrelevant trivia. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine - here's another example though (http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2009/mar/02/second-son-lost-tragic-crash-motorcycle/) - I'm more then happy to go through news archives if you want more proof. Paul Austin (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ghost (disambiguation)

I will be doing (another) sweep through Ghost (disambiguation) that will revert some of your changes. WP:MOSDAB allows piping for formatting - and discourages multiple bluelinks per line. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that. By all means sweep through and fix things, but please don't just revert. I fixed a lot of other things including duplicate entries, adding years and album titles, and fixing section headers/subheaders. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the plan! (John User:Jwy talk) 23:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool! If you want a challenge in this area, take a look at Scan. I'm not quite read for that one yet. . . Cheers. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

OMG me neither. I only got drawn into it because I just made an article on Ghosts (The Marked Men album) and I wanted to add it in, but noticed the music section of the dab page was a bit messy. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Fireballs (band)

I think last.fm is GFDL... Stifle (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it? I didn't know that. I was tagging text in the article for citations & peacock terms & I started thinking "it looks like this was copied & pasted from somewhere else", both due to the language & the quotation marks having that copy/paste look (“ as opposed to "). So I copied one of the sentences into google and presto, exact match. Most of the text was lifted right from last.fm. I don't know if last.fm is GDFL or not, but last.fm itself says the text came from the band's website. I'm doing an internet archive search for the band's website now. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I just logged into last.fm to edit it and it appears you're right. However, I note that the bottom of the text says "From www.fireballsaustralia.com", indicating that it was probably lifted from a previous version of the band's website. In that case it's probably copyvio on last.fm to begin with. In any case the language certainly isn't appropriate for WP so I'm just going to revert to a previous version. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Desolation Row: My Chemical Romance

Hi, IllaZilla! I have a question. Am I credited with adding the "disputed genres" link (or whatever it is) in the Desolation Row article? I was checking my watchpage and saw your edit and comment. Then I checked the edit to see what you were referring to. As it turns out, I don't know what a disputed genre is, as far as links go. My edits, as indicated, were as minor copy edits, so there is a possibility I cleaned up of what somebody else tagged here, though I don't recall specifically. The truth be told, I do dispute a lot that's being added, but would never thumb my nose at an editor. So am I reading the edit comparison wrong? If you will, let me know on my Talk page. I'll try to track it down too, but I'm off for some corned beef and cabbage. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt it was you. I was going through all of the My Chemical Romance-related articles tagging them for WikiProject Emo, and I noticed they all had "disputed subgenres" links in their infoboxes. These all appeared to have been added by the same editor. I think User:Zntrip simply copied it over [67] from one of the MCR articles when he added the infobox for the MCR version. The so-called "disputed subgenres" bit comes from the fact that folks constantly edit-war and bicker endlessly on Talk:My Chemical Romance and all related articles about what genres the band's music falls under, so Friginator decided he'd go around and add "disputed subgenres" to every MCR-related infobox, making it a link to the style section in the band article. This is inappropriate, because the "dispute" is amongst WP editors and we shouldn't allow it to result in weasely wording and unintuitive internal links in the articles themselves. We present sources, discuss them on the talk page, and come to a consensus about what the article should say, not add some moronic "disputed subgenres" garbage to the infobox.=

Long story short, no, it wasn't you. And I enjoyed some corned beef & cabbage today myself :-) --IllaZilla (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to relate this tale. Sordid though it may be, it comes as a relief. You know, with all there is to do - mowing the lawn, catching up with episodes of The Honeymooners, hunting down sources for the article on Zasu Pitts - you'd think there wouldn't be time for such amusements. But people are funny and despite that and sometimes because of it, you generally gotta love 'em. Good luck in your own pursuits. Allreet (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! And thanks for cleaning up the article for me. I'm an avid gamer and a fan of Alien and Predator, but I haven't seen Requiem, played the game, or even played any Aliens vs. Predator game. Let me know if you'd like to collaborate on any other video game articles within your scope. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. I'm a big fan of all the films, and I have some supplementary books & other materials that are good for those articles, but I've actually never played an Alien, Predator, or AVP game. One of my books does have some source material on a lot of the games, but as far as the game articles are concerned I'm mostly interested in maintenance & merging the long-neglected stub articles into the list article (though I haven't touched that in a long time). --IllaZilla (talk) 07:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Pistols

Thanks a lot. And thanks for pressing the issue on the infobox picture--we've wound up with something much more...Wikipedic.DocKino (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. Not as cool as the previous one, unfortunately, but more in line with Wikipedia's standards. I wish we could get a better one, but with a band as iconic as the Pistols and the relevant photos being over 30 years old, I doubt we'd find anyone willing to release one under a free license. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Motion City Soundtrack & WikiProject Emo

I'm not going to sit here and argue with that, lol. Some music journalists are quite narrow minded, oh well, stick to the sources we shall. Cheers for the long reasoning. Should probably get around to adding it to the article. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 06:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

RFTC discog

As I mentioned, I think the singles section of your discog looks good, but I'm a little confused by one thing. On the vinyl releases, some tiles are italicized, some are in quotes, and more are neither. Why the difference? The "neither" ones appear to be band names. If they're singles, they should be italicized. If they're not all singles, the section should be retitled. In any case, I think the differences should be explained somehow. -Freekee (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The italicized ones are the releases that have their own titles. Dancing Birds, for example, is the title of the 7" that has the songs "Black Eye" and "Bombs Away" on it (and appears on the cover), but is not the title of either of the songs.

The ones that are in quotes are singles that don't have special titles, so their title is just the names of the A- and B-sides. For example "Pure Genius" or "Used" / "Lose Your Clown".

The ones that have no italics or quotes are split releases with other bands, and don't have special titles. According to WP:ALBUMS#Naming the way to title these is A-side band / B-side band. Should they be italicized too? Examples of these are Rocket from the Crypt / Bloodthirsty Butchers, which has no other title, but also Smells Like Grease for Peace, which is a split with Deabolt but has an independent title.

The band's official discography lists these all as singles, and I tend to agree because, despite some of them having their own titles, a majority of them have only 1 or 2 tracks (the longest only has 4 and is part of the Sub Pop Singles Club). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, then. But should there be some sort of explanation? I guess I don't see a good way/place to explain it. But either way, the page looks good! -Freekee (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I have to get back to it and add citations (mostly for the release details), then I'll move it into the main space. But right now I'm working on emo :) --IllaZilla (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

AvP picture

Hey, thanks for the help on the picture. I assumed it was game concept art. Do you know any other places I could find another decent picture for it, or is the screenshot enough? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 05:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know of any place to get concept art or development shots, but I think for now the screenshot is enough. Wish I could be of more help. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Alien barnstar ribbon

Hey it's me again! I noticed there wasn't a ribbon for the Alien barnstar (not one that I could find, anyways), so I commissioned one. Do with it as you will. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, cool. Thanks! --IllaZilla (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Blink 182's 2003 album

I was wondering if you could be kind enough to add a column to show who sand lead vocals for the songs. The other albums have this on their wikipages, I was hoping this page could too. --MySummerJob (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The other ones shouldn't. That one did, but I removed it. It's not something we typically do for most artists (even those who have multiple singers). The album credits don't break down who sang which songs, so we shouldn't either. It's extraneous and doesn't seem significant. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Alien logo

Hi there

I've made a vectorized version of your logo File:Alien_logo.GIF - ru:File:Alien logo.svg. If you like it and there is no mistakes in comparison to your original version, you can upload it to Commons. 93.170.2.97 (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks excellent! Thanks! --IllaZilla (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The New Amsterdams

Hey, I removed the Wikiproject Emo template from all of the New Amsterdams articles you tagged. The New Amsterdams are Alt-Country, and they are not Emo in ANY definition of the word. The only connection one could make is that Matt Pryor is the frontman, but that isn't sound enough reasoning to tag the band as such. That's why Pryor's page is tagged. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't. Their connection with the emo genre is via the members and Vagrant Records (in much the same way as Reggie and the Full Effect), and it never hurts to have more projects willing to take an interest in improving an article. That they are tangentially related to emo is enough for the project to take an interest in helping improve the articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That is faulty reasoning. You tag only pages that are directly related to a wikiproject, we aren't playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon here. The Wikiproject's purpose is to improve articles that are DIRECTLY related to the subject, in this case emo music. You argue that TNA are related because of Matt Pryor and Vagrant Records, but that's why Matt Pryor and Vagrant Records are both tagged. You don't just tag every article that is somewhat related to a topic with that topic's wikiproject, you have to be selective. I also notice that you have tagged Motion City Soundtrack and Alkaline Trio with the tag, when neither of those bands fit the description of "emo" either. I think that you need to read up on the definition, history, and signifying styles that denote emo music before you continue tagging articles willy-nilly. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Kiac#Motion City Soundtrack & WikiProject Emo. I was able to find several sources connecting MCS to emo with just a cursory search. There are many sources that call Alkaline Trio emo as well, hence they fall within the broad scope of the project. FYI, I am in the process of rewriting the emo article top to bottom, and I have done plenty of reading about the style's history, definition, etc. One of the hallmarks of emo is that it has little to no consensus definition; the style covers many genres of rock music from hardcore to indie (and yes, even occasionally alt-country). It is an aesthetic as much as it is a musical style, which is one of the reasons the term is so broadly applied and so contentious.

The purpose of WP:EMO is not to bicker about which acts are & aren't emo. If at least a few reliable sources connect a topic to emo, even if the connection is tangential, that's enough for the project to consider it within its scope. That is why the project has an importance scale as part of its assessment department; because some topics will obviously be more central to the subject of "emo" than others, but even those which are not central, but still related, are within the project's broad scope. Both I and the project are acting in good faith here: we merely wish to help organize and improve articles related to emo. This is not something that should be discouraged. WikiProjects do not have to be as selective as you are suggesting. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Automatically assessed Emo articles

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You can do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:

[[Category:WikiProject Emo articles]]
[[Category:Automatically assessed articles]]

I've added at least one parent to the category. I invite you to check my work for accuracy and completeness.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Same thing with Category:Automatically assessed Punk music articles. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Same thing with Category:Alien images. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And Category:Alien categories. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Emo Article

On the subject of this edit. As far as i can see, the term does not appear in any form in the Oxford English Dictionary [68] so your removal was correct. --neon white talk 11:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for looking into that. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Punknews.org

Yes, I am Alex101 on Punknews.org. Do you ever read any news I submit there? Alex (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably. I check the 'org at least once a day for news. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:April

I swear on the head of my wife I have no idea what you're talking about. --81.132.219.49 (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Miszabot notice

Hi, what is the purpose of adding Miszabot to every talk page you encounter? Miszabot is used for much used talk pages. To use it for instance at Talk:Sulaco (spaceship) is kind of pointless since it only had three comments since it's creation. Garion96 (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the same counts for {{talkheader}}, see the instructions on the template. It should only be used if needed. So it is needed on Talk:George W Bush but not needed for talk:Val Verde. Garion96 (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I only did it to the pages within the scope of WP:ALIEN. As the project coordinator, I find myself doing archiving and archive cleanups regularly and it can get tedious to do manually. Although most of these pages do not presently really need archiving, one assumes (or hopes, anyway) that they will as the articles are moved towards GA/FA & the pages become more active. Obviously the bot won't do anything if the page is empty. In the Sulaco case, even though there are only 3 threads, I would have probably archived the first 2 manually anyway as they are 2-3 years old. Putting the bot in place saves me the bother of checking on these things manually. Archive intervals can always be adjusted for less active pages. And having the talkheader never hurts. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So editors coming to the talk page have to go to the archives to see if anything was discussed before? Even if it were only three comments? That really is unpractical. If the talk pages becomes active it can be turned on but right now it serves no purpose. Regarding {{talkheader}}, consensus is against using it on every page. Like also was discussed in the last TFD of the template. Garion96 (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, the archive intervals and "minthreadsleft" fields can be adjusted for the less active pages so that the few threads that are present are not archived immediately. The default for "minthreadsleft" is, I think, 5. Putting the code in place now means I don't have to do it again later. Feel free to adjust any that you think are inappropriate. I don't see the point of keeping a thread from 2005 on the active discussion page, for example, as the issue it addresses is probably long stale. Any topic that old would be worth re-raising in a new thread anyway if it were still an issue. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And I don't see the point of archiving when there basically is nothing to archive. I will check/ask for more input. Garion96 (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I was probably just being overzealous, as I'm a fan of auto-archiving and I wanted to standardize things across the Alien project. I won't object if you want to revert me on any pages where you feel it's unnecessary, and I'll be less gung-ho about it in the future. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Saw your comment too late, I already asked. Oh well..I am curious anyway to what other editors think. Garion96 (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding the bot. I just saw you added it again at Talk:Aliens (film). One talk archives in 3 years. There really is no need for a bot there. It's more hurtful even since discussions are archived way too soon. There is a need for a bot at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not but not at Talk:Aliens (film). Garion96 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I think you are being a bit overzealous as well. By "I won't object..." I did not mean "go through all of my contributions and remove the bot and talkheaders from every talk page I have contributed to". Some of the pages you removed talkheaders from have had histories of problems with forum-style comments, unsigned comments, civility, OR, etc...all the things the header is designed to notify new contributors of. The header also contains the links to the archive pages, and your blanket removal of it removed archive links from several pages. Talk:Alien (Alien franchise), for example, is an active page with 230K worth of archives already. Please don't remove the talkheader without actually checking the history of the page to see if it is in fact warranted, and without adding an archive box if the page already has archives. I have had experience with all of these talk pages, so I am aware of which ones probably warrant the headers. Simply blanket removing them from every page is not the right course of action (any more than it was of me to add them to every page).

Also, the bot wouldn't archive things "way too soon", at least not since I blanked all of the "minthreadsleft" parameters. It would always leave 5 discussions on the page, even if they hadn't been active for the amount of time that the algorithm is set for. The bot has these customizeable parameters for a reason. You may be right about it not being necessary at Talk:Aliens (film) (at least not currently), but there are other pages where it is quite useful. It is not exclusively for the highest-use pages like Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, actually it is only for high use pages (or user talk), not for pages with only 1 archive in 3 years time. See also Talk:Misfits (band). 90 kb of archives in 4 years is next to nothing. Regarding talk headers, yes, it was a bad idea when they added archives to the template. I thought I checked it if they had an archive before I removed it but obviously missed some. Garion96 (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect, you missed them all. On not a single page where you removed the talkheader did you replace it with an archive box if necessary. And nowhere on the Miszabot howto page does it say that it is exclusively for high-use pages. The bot merely automates a process that would otherwise be done manually. Even if some of these pages only had a few comments on them, I would probably have manually archived the comments that were 2-3+ years old anwyay. I'm fine with leaving it off of the majority of the pages in question, as I admit I had been overzealous in applying the bot and these pages really didn't need it. However, the pages that are decently active and have been using the bot for a while (8 months or more for some of the ones you removed it from) are doing just fine with it; in those cases it is merely automating a process that I or others would be doing manually. I've even been thanked occasionally for taking on the task of cleaning up & archiving some of these talk pages. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

←No, on places where I realised the talkarchive was used for the arhive I simply did not remove the header. See [69]. Nonetheless I admit I removed it incorrectly a couple of times. Garion96 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple? No, you in fact did it 14 times: [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]. In each of these edits your removal of the talkheader removed the only link to the page's archive, and you did not replace it with any other link to said archive. Look, I'm not green at this; the obvious impression is that you simply went through my contributions and removed both the bot and header from nearly every talk page I've contributed to in the last few days, without actually checking the content or history of most of the pages to see if either the bot or header were warranted. I've contributed to all of these talk pages, most with some regularity. I realize that you don't care much for automated archiving, and that I implemented it in a number of places where it really didn't need to be implemented, but perhaps you could grant me the benefit of the doubt in the cases of pages where I'm not only a regular contributor, but the primary editor doing the maintenance work (whereas you have never contributed to these pages except in this recent anti-bot/header campaign). I'm not trying to offend, I'm merely pointing out that I actually do know what I'm doing in most of these cases and that the bot/header were being used appropriately on a number of the pages you removed them from. Talk:Aliens (film), for example, had been using the bot for archiving for 8 months without a single complaint until you came along and removed it outright, and never did it archive excessively. It was being used exactly as it was intended: as a tool for performing an action that is tedious to do by hand. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course I went through your edits and did that. That one is kind of obvious. I believe that you do know what you're doing. If however I see this kind of edit, I am starting to doubt that in some cases though. Which lead me to the removal of many bot and talkheader pages. I also don't expect many complaints from having a pointless bot on a page, especially if it is a quiet talk page with only one edit per month or so.... Nevertheless I admit I removed talkheader too much, I didn't realised/saw that it also was used as the talk archive. I did checked for the amount of edits though and on every one of these pages the bot was still completely unnecessary. Also, creating a yearly archive is not tedious or hard plus many editors like to read the talk page if they are interested in on article. No need to point them to an archive when it is not necessary. Garion96 (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm satisfied with where things are at now so I'm willing to drop it & move on. From now on I won't implement the bot without asking on the talk page first, and I'll keep it to the more active pages. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject My Chemical Romance/Invite

Hi IllaZilla. I deleted the above page. For future reference, when you tag any sort of page that is transcluded in others (such as the above page and all templates), please place the CSD notice in noinclude tags (<noinclude>csd notice</noinclude>) so that all of the pages transcluding the page marked for speedy deletion are not also placed in CAT:CSD. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

great work

Great work cleaning up Talk:List of emo artists. That wasn't easy! tedder (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It sure wasn't. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Emo Barnstar
		For fantastic work on List of emo artists and Talk:List of emo artists, required tenacious skills and Hard Work.

tedder (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Who knew there was an emo barnstar? tedder (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I did, cuz I made it :) Thanx! --IllaZilla (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh :-) The one listed on WP:Barnstars was wrong, so I just put that new image in. Hadn't been awarded one yet, did you? tedder (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I imagine it's rare to be awarded a barnstar that you created yourself. I made the Punk barnstar and the Alien barnstar too, so feel free to give those out to people. I don't think I listed them at WP:Barnstars, though. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Used discussion FYI

Check out this discussion.. thanks! tedder (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Our Emo Edit War

I mean it all in good fun just so ya know. :) But I do think it's too long and rambles too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimzy1990 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a playground, and I don't find having to revert your repeated POV-based edits to be "good fun". You seem to be laboring under the delusion that emo did not exist before 2002, despite the multitude of reliable sources to the contrary. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Gee a bit anal eh? I'm trying to be nice. And yes it did exist before 2002, but it was hardly noteworthy. It's not like it's been well-known for 25 years. Mimzy1990 (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of the stuff that happened before 2002 was noteworthy, and it's important to the history. Notability does not limit article content, and details of the history are important to an encyclopedic treatment of the topic. We wouldn't cut out everything in Adolph Hitler's biography prior to 1920 just because he wasn't well-known before then. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess my problem is most other genres don't get so much attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimzy1990 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Then you're welcome to work on those genre articles that you find lacking. The fact that other articles aren't given the same attention isn't a reason to dumb down the emo article, it's a reason to improve those other articles. Go do some research, gather some sources, and get on it. Punk rock is currently the only Featured music genre article, and that's a sad state of affairs. My goal is to get emo up to at least Good Article status. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

project deletion

Hi for Wikipedia:WikiProject Senses Fail Wikipedia:WikiProject Panic! at the Disco would it not be better to leave a redirect? there is a fair bit of history, and there are incoming links too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There are almost no incoming links from the mainspace (article talk pages, etc), since they came mainly via the project templates and those no longer exist. I don't see the point in a redirect nor a need to keep the history...if these ever were to come back, it would be in task force form and would have to be built from the ground up anyway in a subpage of a parent project. I don't see any need to keep the histories of projects that no longer exist and aren't likely to ever be resurrected. Perhaps I could move the talk pages into subpages of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Emo just to keep the discussion threads archived. There isn't any other content on the project pages that couldn't be rebuilt just by using the task force creation template, which is what would happen anyway if anyone expressed an interest in launching new task forces for these topics. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that User:Dank deleted and restored, and decided it should go to a XfD if you want to terminate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Green Day

I saw your revert of my edit. Perhaps next time you could have just deleted the error and left the rest. It is widely accepted that 21st Century Breakdown is a concept album. Thats not a derogatory term and a valid Category. Thanks! Michaelh2001 (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, I did not mean to revert that bit. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Nekromantix

Can you PLEASE stop undo'ing my changes?? We had this discussion 2 years ago. Name mispellings all over the place, wrong terms (made up by you) all over the place. If anything it would be close to an "Upright Bass" NOT "Double Bass" due to the way you pick it up. "Coffin Bass" is not just a brand but a constructual design which puts this instrument in its own category: "Coffin Bass". Your previous ignorance regarding real facts has resulted in faulty information about this bands history and names has spread on the internet. Please refrain from undoing if you arent even interested in this band. KimNekroman (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm interested in the band, or I wouldn't bother contributing to the article, would I? I have all of the albums and have recommended them to friends. That's what led me to try to improve the wikipedia article in the first place. Before I came along it looked like this. Pretty basic from Wikipedia's standards. I've been contributing to Wikipedia for several years and I know a lot about how it works and what its standards are, so I know what I'm doing. Let me try to address the specific problems we seem to disagree on:

• The website: Are you no longer using http://www.nekromantix.com/? I realize it hasn't been updated in a long time, and most of your updates come from Myspace, but if nekromantix.com still exists then technically it's still your "official" website. http://www.myspace.com/nekromantix is your MySpace profile, not an official website (the website is MySpace, your portion is a profile on myspace...in the same way that each article on Wikipedia is not a site unto itself; Wikipedia is the site). I suppose we can keep the myspace in the infobox, since it's current whereas the old website seems to be defunct, but I should probably note in the "external links" section that the official site is out of date.
• The coffin bass. First of all, "a built by himself upright bass" is bad grammar, as "built by himself" is not an adjective. "Custom" is an adjective, and is accurate, as it means "made or modified to personal taste". You made the coffin bass yourself, to your own specifications. Therefore it is a custom instrument. This is a perfectly accurate description and is simply good English. The very first paragraph of the history explains how you made it, so it's not like anybody is going to think that it was made by someone else.
• The correct term is "double bass". Notice that there is no article for the term upright bass; it is a redirect to double bass. "Coffin bass" is a term that does not exist outside the context of Nekromantix. Just because it has a "unique constructual design" does not change the classification of instrument. The Fender Jag-Stang is a custom-built electric guitar with a unique structural design, but it's still an electric guitar. Gene Simmons' axe-shaped bass and Jerry Only's "devastator" are still bass guitars, even though they have unique structural designs. The lead paragraph and the history both describe the coffin bass and why it's called that; the personnel listing provides useful links to the instruments each member plays. It should therefore link to double bass, otherwise it's not helpful to readers at all.
• "Mesa" vs. "Meza": Music from Regions Beyond lists his name as "James Meza". So does Tiger Army's myspace and their official website. I have to respecfully disagree that I'm spelling it wrong. Did he leave Nekromantix for Tiger Army, or did he leave Nekromantix and join Tiger Army later? I'll probably just reword that bit. It's perfectly accurate to say that he became Tiger Army's drummer because, well, that's a verifiable fact.
• You also removed the mentions that Peter Sandorff left to pursue a degree in architecture, even though that's referenced to a reliable source (this one). I don't understand why you keep removing it. Same thing with the fact that Pete Belair went back to Australia...Your very own myspace post is the source for that. Why do you insist on removing it? The reader is going to wonder what happened to these people. They didn't vanish into thin air, and as long as we have verifiable sources to explain why they left and/or where they went afterwards, it's worth noting those details.
• You keep removing the mention that you use the name "Gaarde" for songwriting credits. Why? This is an easily verfiable fact; the name is in all of your albums, and again your own myspace post (which obviously was written in part due to our discussions 2 years ago) is the source. Why do you insist on removing info that you yourself are making public on your own website?
• Wrong terms made up by me? I don't see any.

With all due respect, I am doing my best in good faith to keep the article accurate. I am fan of your band and your music, and I hope to see you play the next time you are in my city. I'm also a Wikipedian, though, and therefore with respect to Wikipedia I have to do the best I can using the source material available. The best way for you to help make the Nekromantix article more accurate would be to provide links to secondary sources that have written about the band: music magazines, reliable websites, books, etc. You could even give us some links to interviews. I would gladly use such sources to help make the article more accurate and keep it within Wikipedia's standards. It's my hope that it can become a good article or even featured article someday, but I haven't been able to find enough secondary source material on my own. If you could contribute any sources you have to the article's talk page that would be extremely helpful, and help to avoide the appearance of a conflict of interest. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

1. The website www.nekromantix.com has been defunct for a while. Look at the last update and you will discover 2006 as last revised. The bands Myspace now functions as official website, just like many other bands use Myspace as their only site.
2. Peter Sandorff did not leave the band for the reason that you insist on stating. Pete Belair never left Australia it even explains that in the link to Nekromantix myspace that you yourself provide. This is a good example of how you twist the truth and facts. If you really had any interest it is easy to find information about Peter Sandorff left to form his own band originally. Second time he left was to join german Psychobilly band Mad Sin...but I guess writing the correct information means real research other than picking the first two Google options that comes up.
3. The "z" in Mesa is yet another example of you misunderstanding what is a "real" name and what is a "stage" name.
4. Sadly the interviews that are refered to, got their wrong information from this very site because you originally used unreliable sources.
5. Please do not try to teach me correct grammar as there is already several wrong use of english grammar on this site about Nekromantix.
6. What makes you say that "(this one)" is a reliable source? It is a random German site with absolutely no affiliation to the band, yet you choose to call it a reliable source..what do you base that on?
7. What more reliable source than the website of the band could you ask for?
8. The name "Gaarde" is being used by several persons as synonym in regard to songwriting credit and yet you wrongly informs that it is used by Kim Nekroman. You should do your research before publishing information that has more facets to it.
9. How come you dont undo ALL my changes?
10. You also failed to change guitar membershift yet you added drummermembershift?
11. I have a hard time taking your Wikipedia work serious when you add a band like "Chop Tops" as related to the Nekromantix...please explain that?
12. The term "double bass" is not a widely accepted term. The correct term is Upright bass or Contrabass. The Coffin Bass is not an acoustic instrument and the correct term would be "electric upright bass" if you really wanna go into detail the measurement of the Coffin Bass puts it in another bass instrumentment category that doesn't exist, therefore the correct term here would be Coffin Bass. Your guitar example doesn't really apply here since a stringed instrument (bass and guitar) is categorized by many other factors such as size, scale length etc.
13. I am not gonna waste much more time on explaining what is right and will cont. to correct this site. --KimNekroman (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In order to better respond to your individual points, I have numbered them and will provide responses below:

1. That's fine, and you'll notice that I left the myspace as the site listed in the infobox, and I noted in the "external links" section that the old official website is out of date (however it still contains useful info up to 2006 so I felt the link worth keeping there).
2. The source cited states that Peter Sandorff left the band to study architecture. In the absence of any better reliable sources I have to go based on that. It is not my fault if there are not more accurate sources available; I did not merely pick the first 2 google hits. I searched through pages of search results and that was the most detailed source I could find that seemed both reliable and third-party.
3. I am aware of the difference between real names and pseudonyms, thanks. Everywhere I have looked up his name (album credits, band websites, etc.) it's spelled with a "z", so I went with that. Most of the members of Nekromantix over the years have used pseudonyms, so I don't see why you have a problem with James being listed by his. If I had a reliable source giving his real name, I would cite it. But again, I searched several of the most likely places and they all used a "z".
4. Actually, most of the sources cited predate the information in the wikipedia article. You assume that they are getting their erroneous information from wikipedia, whereas I think it's the other way around. This source, for example (the one that referred to you as "Dan Gaarde") is dated April 19, 2007. This is what the Wikipedia article on Nekromantix looked like at that time. Note there is no mention of "Gaarde" at all. I've gone through the article's history and this is the earliest mention I can find of the Dan Gaarde thing, and it's from 2004. User:Inanechild appears to be the one who put it there, so I suggest you take it up with him since that seems to have been the source of the problem (though he doesn't appear to have edited Wikipedia since September, so I doubt he's still around on the site). The Dan Gaarde bit was removed by someone else in August 2006, 8 months before the EU Jacksonville article wzs published. If they were getting the name from Wikipedia, they must have gotten it sometime between 2004 and 2006. In any case it's certainly not my fault, since my first edit to the article wasn't until July 2007. I came across the Dan Gaarde name in the EU Jacksonville article, after having searched for the name in connection with Nekromantix. It seemed like a reliable source at the time. Obviously it was erroneous.
5. Could you give some examples? I'd be happy to fix any incorrect grammar, or to request a copyeditor review the article. That particular example I gave was grammatically incorrect, however.
6. It seems like no matter what sources turn up, if you're not in control of them you call them inaccurate and unreliable. Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources alone. This seems pretty reliable: it's an extensive review, gives a lot of background on the band, and even has quotes from you in it. Are you suggesting that it's fabricated? I don't read or speak German, so I'd have to request someone who does to review the site and see if it meets Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources (editorial oversight, established history in the field, etc.). There aren't a hell of a lot of good online sources that give the full history of Nekromantix, so I had to go with what few reliable sources I could find. As for Pete Belair, I assume he left Australia in order to tour with Nekromantix. The article does not state anywhere that he moved away from Australia, it merely says that he went back to Australia after touring with Nekromantix, which is what your myspace post says: "Since Pete lives in Australia and intend to keep on doing so, we had to look for a permanent more local guitarist."
7. Secondary sources, ideally. Established music publications, journalists, interviews, etc. As I've said before, Wikipedia relies primarily on secondary sources. Plus the band's website does not have the level of detail that's needed to write an accurate history of the band. If it did, I wouldn't have to do all of this searching. Wikipedia is looking for higher-caliber sources than Myspaces and blog posts.
8. You never before mentioned that the name Gaarde is used by multiple persons for songwriting credit. In fact your very own myspace post says that it's your songwriting pseudonym. If I may quote: "It is correct that 'Gaarde' is Kim Nekroman's alias when registering songs but wrong that assume that it is his real/legal name." What more research do you expect me to do, when your own blog post says that it's your pseudonym? You're asking me "What more reliable source than the website of the band could you ask for?", and yet this information that you say is incorrect is coming from your very own website.
9. Because not all of your changes needed undoing. Just because I disagree with some of your edits doesn't mean I disagree with all of them.
10. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Here was my latest revision to the article, and it mentions all of the recent changes: James to Andy to Lux, and Troy to Pete to Franc. I even created a new portion of the lineups table reflecting the new lineup. Was there a change in there that I missed? Your myspace post says that Franc's been with the band since December. Is that accurate?
11. I'm not the one who put The Chop Tops as an "associated act", That was done last February by User:StompinPomp. I was not paying much attention to the article at the time and probably didn't notice. He probably put them there because their article says that they've toured with Nekromantix quite a bit. Note that in my latest revision I left them out. Not everything that goes into the article is my fault; Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, even random anonymous people who may add incorrect information. That's why we insist on reliable sources so much. Even so, we're all volunteers here and sometimes things slip through the cracks.
12. "Double bass" is evidently a widely enough accepted term that that's what the Wikipedia article is titled. If you have a problem with that I suggest you take it up over on that article. It looks like they're getting their info from a number of books on music theory & practice. This is really a semantic argument; it's true that people call it by various names (double bass, upright bass, contrabass, stand-up bass), it was simply made "double bass" in order to avoid redirects in the links. By "it's not an acoustic instrument" I assume you mean that it uses bass instrument amplification. Even so that wouldn't change the type of instrument that it is. I'm not very knowledgeable about instruments so I'll take your word for it about the measurements, etc. but I still think it's worth linking our readers to the article on double bass so that they can have some context and understanding of what family of instruments the coffin bass belongs to, even if its construction sets it apart from the typical instruments in that family.
13. Your contributions are appreciated, but keep in mind that you do not own this article. If it's apparent that you're editing it with a conflict of interest then I'll have to seek mediation through more formal channels. It must obviously comply with our policies on biographies of living persons but as long as it sticks to reliable source material then it is doing just that.

Again, I appreciate your point of view on things and I'm sorry for anything in the article that's grossly inaccurate, but please keep in mind that I'm just one of dozens (if not hundreds) of people who've contributed to this article since it was started in 2004. I'm doing my best to keep it in line with Wikipedia's core policies such as verifiability and neutral point of view, but I can't be held responsible for every bit of text that's in there. I ask you to assume good faith on my part and not jump down my throat about information that comes from sources that appear to be reasonably reliable. I cannot help it if there are not an abundance of high-quality secondary sources easily available that meet your satisfaction. At the end of the day, however, this is an encyclopedia and the standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. I can hardly be berated to going to the effort find sources and then using those sources to verify the article's contents. I ask that we continue this discussion at Talk:Nekromantix; having it here is not all that helpful because other editors who may watch the article are not seeing it. I'm going to transpose it there so we can continue in a more public forum. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Green Day 21 Guns

I reverted your re-route, because it is officially reported on FMQB that this song will indeed impact Modern Rock radio on May 25, 2009. [84] Thanks. Joberooni (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as it's referenced in the article. My objection was that the entire article was based on a single piece of cover artwork, so it was pretty blatantly original research & crystal ball-ishness in that form. This source makes a much better case for starting an article, though I think it should be moved to 21 Guns (song) since there are no other song artilces by that title (see WP:MOSDAB). --IllaZilla (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding my edits

Lately you have been reverting my edits which remove the lyrics and music credits from 21st Century Breakdown. I think it is pretty obvious that all songs are Green Day songs unless otherwise noted. There is really no need to credit Billie Joe Armstrong and Green Day for every single bonus song. I even noted it at the beginning of the track list that all songs are by Billie Joe Armstrong / Green Day unless otherwise noted, which makes sense to me. Is there any way the article is enhanced by adding lyrics and music credits to just the bonus tracks? The way it is on the article now seems to make perfect sense. – Zntrip 06:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The main track listing refers only to the standard album tracklist (the part that's not collapsed). The bonus tracks, etc. are not really part of the album proper; hence the separate subsection. Since the bonus tracks are not all credited to Green Day (being that several are covers), it makes more sense to give the writing credits separately in each of the separate collapsed lists. Basically what I'm saying is that the main tracklist and the "bonus tracks" should be considered separately, hence the various bonus track tables ought to have their own individual writing credits. I had thought of simply using the "all music/all lyrics" parameters in each template, but it displays these above the template even when it's collapsed and, well, it didn't look good. Saying "all songs by Armstrong/Green Day unless otherwise noted" above the main tracklist just doesn't feel right to me, because it gives the impression that there are some songs on 21st Century Breakdown that aren't by them, and that's not really true. The only songs that aren't by Green Day are the the iTunes bonus tracks, and aren't really part of the album per se (in fact if you look them up on iTunes they even say "Non-Album Track"). So using the "all songs by Green Day except..." isn't really accurate, because those "except" songs aren't actually part of the album. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The message at the beginning to the section clearly refers to all the songs in the entire section. After all it says "all songs" not just "all songs on the album". When there is a simpler way to communicate information we should use it, instead of repeating it over and over. People who reads the article are unaware of the templates and I'm sure the meaning of the lead sentence is clear to them as it is to you. Furthermore by giving credit to the non-Green Day songs, it is assumed that the other songs are actually by the band; the message at the top clears up any confusion, although I am certain none exists. If you still disagree I suggest you ask another editor for a third-party opinion, because I am unconvinced with your reasoning. – Zntrip 19:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the most sensible solution is to have the "except where noted" bit be above the bonus track templates. Leave the main tracklist as "all lyrics by Armstrong, all music by Green Day", because that's the case: All of the lyrics to 21st Century Breakdown were written by Armstrong, and all of the music was written by Green Day. The article is, after all, about the album; the b-sides & bonus tracks etc. are merely useful ancilliary info. There's a reason they have a separate subsection and are hidden. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I think this is the most sensible solution. – Zntrip 20:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Undoing NHL 2009 refs all the time

So please explain me why you keep removing any reference to Millencolin's song (Done is Done) appearing in the NHL 2009 game? The first time I can understand (point of view reference), but the second time was simply stating a fact. Would it be ok if it was a reference of the song appearing in a movie? You know the game industry is bigger than the movie industry these days, right? It is relevant and should stay up there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverikster (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be referenced, and it also needs to be significant. It's frankly not significant to the main article about the band; many of their songs have "appeared" in many different contexts: films, games, compilations, TV shows, etc. ("were used in" is a much better phrase, by the way, it's not like they just randomly popped up there by complete coincidence...someone licensed the song and then placed it in the soundtrack deliberately). It would be much more pertinent to the Machine 15 article, if anywhere. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD List of fictional narcissists and your comments thereof

What is your rationale for deleting this pertinent and relevant article and who is this person of whom you accuse me of being a sockpuppet? --Dominus Noster (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The article's being "pertinent and relevant" is entirely your opinion, and I gave a perfectly valid rationale in my !vote: I believe it to be inherently POV and impossible to source accurately. As for the the other, I have a strong suspicion that you are a sockpuppet of blocked user Jupiter Optimus Maximus (aka Illustrious One, aka YourLord) for the following reasons:

• Your contribution history is extremely similar to his, with nearly identical patterns (unreferenced psychoanalysis of fictional characters, adding categories related to such, etc.).
• Your first contribution being the creation of List of fictional narcissists fits JOM's MO to a T, and matches his past patterns. I'm not in the least surprised to see that the list is populated entirely by JOM's favorite characters. Tthey are all articles that he used to edit war on over fictional foo categories...Category:Fictional narcissists not surprisingly among them. Since these categories were speedily deleted each time he recreated them, it wouldn't suprise me that his next move would be to do the same thing but in list ariticle form.
• You identify as being 18 and being from Chester, England. JOM also identified as being 18, and all of his previous IPs trace to the same general area (Manchester, Liverpool, & Chester, which are adjacent to each other).

There is clearly enough of a similarity here for me to consider opening up a sockpuppet investigation, but I've asked around for second opinions first. If you're not the same person, then I apologize in advance but you can see how my suspicions are reasonable. Of course if you are JOM, then you well know why I can recognize your patterns. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it's my opinion is totally irrelevant, my opinion is correct. With regards to the sockpuppetry, thank you for being fairminded but other than a passion for fiction and psychology, I don't really see any similarities between my editing patterns and JOM's. You seem to have something of an obsession with this person so it's quite possible that your judgement is clouded. Note also that JOM identified as being seventeen, not eighteen. --Dominus Noster (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your comment on my page

Sorry; I have a couple of real-life time-consuming issues on my plate right now, and this particular facet of Wikipedia is new to me. I don't think I'll have the time to make a relevant contribution. Magidin (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

IP reported

Hi. In case you were wondering, I've just reported the IP that is adding OR on 21st Century Breakdown to WP:AN/EW. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 23:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Good call. I've requested semi-protection for the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. There don't seem to be any admins available to clear the AIV backlog and get the second IP blocked. And if this guy comes back as a third IP we'll have to consider blocking the whole range. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 23:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection was denied b/c the admin thought blocking the one IP would do it. Wrong, obviously. I've reported the 2nd IP to AIV and re-requested protection, so I don't know that there's any more we can do. The guy's been final-warned already. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope we can get this semi-protected. Otherwise, we'll have to get someone to block the whole IP range, and that is hard to do and used only as a last resort. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 23:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you guys submitted it, I was just going to but... RedSkunk^talk 01:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been done. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

21st Century Breakdown chart positions

Hi IllaZilla. Do you think you could give me a hand at 21st Century Breakdown with the chart positions table? It needs to be essentially redone. The chart names can be shortened, as repeating "albums chart" each time is redundant. I also need sources for any information in it that doesn't have a source right now. Also, I think it would be best to take out all the certifications and sales numbers and put them in a totally different table. I'm really not good with table formatting and finding country album chart sources. So if you have time, I could really use your help on this. Thanks. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 01:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to recall some conversations lately at the albums & musicians projects about where to find sourcing for charts & sales in different countries. I'll look around tomorrow & see what I can find. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Canadian hardcore punk

I've started an article on Canadian hardcore punk if you're interested in helping. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have much expertise on the subject. The sources I have access to only really cover American hardcore (with the exception of some coverage of D.O.A.). I do love Propagandhi, though. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:My Chemical Romance task force articles

I have re-applied the categorisation to the above category. You said that it was already categorised - but it wasn't. I have re-added the sole category for this category. If you wish to delete this categorisation, please replace it with an alternative. Do _NOT_ leave the category without categorisation. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Terminator cast

I've been thinking. In order to curb some of those issues of excessive plot prose in that section, or as you've been finding out the use of fansites with copyvio'd info, what do you think about turning that section into a "Casting" (or something similar) section. This would cut down on space, as the actors can be listed in the plot (I think they already are), and the real world info about the actors/characters can be presented in a prose section. I've found those sections tend to pick up less problems than a "Cast" section that is "Actor as Character". It could be similar to what's at Changeling (film)#Casting. Just a thought.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there's room in a "Casting" section both for paragraphs about the casting process and a list of the primary cast & characters with attendant prose, without it being just more plot. That's what I went for in Alien (film)#Casting and I think it came out pretty well. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You can try one that one, but that's a new form to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Review citations

Will take this into account in the future. Thanks for the heads up. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Film infbox links to country

Hello! The edits I did on the four Terminator films are standard across all film articles. I can see the point about Easter Egg linking, but the template FilmUS (or whatever country the film is from) does two things: i) It links to the main cinema article for that country. Surely it's more useful to link to cinema of the United States instead of just United States on a film article? ii) It also auto-populates the category for that country too. These aren't really Easter Egg links IMO, just as the language parameter in the infobox is used in the same way. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:PIPE, which is part of our manual of style, gives recommendations on keeping links intuitive. The bottom line is that a reader who clicks on the words "Country: United States" will expect to go to the article United States, not Cinema of the United States. It is not appropriate to pipe them to a specialized article in this fashion. It's not the same as the language parameter, because if you are clicking on "Language: English" then you expect to go to an article on the English language (as opposed to, say, the articles on England or English people). Template:Infobox Film does not call for the use of "Cinema of xxxx" templates. In fact it says:

• "Insert the home country or countries of the film's main production companies. Link each country to its appropriate article if possible."

"To its appropriate article", IMO, means United States→United States, not United States→Cinema of the United States. Categorization is quite easily provided without the use of templates, and the best place to provide non-contextual links like "cinema of xxxx" is in a "see also" section, not the infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Alien vs. Predator References

I edited some references to AvP1 and AvP2 which you have deleted. Comment "unreliable fansite". Ok, movie-censoreship is no offical site, but if you only accept offical sites you can deactivate your references. The counterpart of movie-censoreship is www.schnittberichte.com which is the biggest german webside dealing with censorship in the german net (over 40000 visitors a day). Every single report is very detailed and every author puts a lot of work in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.192.229.58 (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That may well be, but it appears as thought the content is user-contributed and thus it does not pass Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. Note that we ask "reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and that "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." We are not asking only for "official sites", but we also will not accept just any random internet site. This does not appear to meet the criteria, as the content can be submitted by anyone (their "staff" lists only translators). If you would like to build consensus as to whether it is a reliable source, please go to WP:FILMS. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you, for your awnser. I postet on WP:Films.

Gone Away

I don't understand your rationale for removing the link to YouTube for The Offspring's Gone Away video. I read your link to what Wikipedia is not and it doesn't seem to apply. What is wrong with including just two links, one to a band-produced video and one to a live video of the song? Musicfan123456789 (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and we have guidelines on what types of external links are appropriate. Links to YouTube are almost always inappropriate, as 90% of the time they are a copyright violation. They are certainly not appropriate to put in the infobox. It would be appropriate to link the official music video if it is hosted on an official site, such as the band's or label's website, where they unquestionably have the rights to host it, but the place to provide that link would be in an "External links" section, not in the infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Dab

Albums and such You have claimed that albums and box sets are different things, but that would contradict the notion behind - e.g. - Category:Box set albums. As WP:NCDAB informs us, disambiguations should be "the generic class that includes the topic." E.g. we have How the West Was Won (Led Zeppelin album) rather than How the West Was Won (2003 Led Zeppelin triple live Compact Disc album). Since box sets are a kind of album, unless we need to disambiguate amongst albums, we should use the more generic title. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Addendum Since you point out the ambiguity of these similarly-titled albums, there may be a reason to make some kind of dab page. You should seek consensus for this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Shyness Clinic redlink

Why do you indicate this is an inappropriate redlink? Redlinks are good, and the fact that you've found sources for the genre indicates it's possible for an article to be created, right? tedder (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The source I found makes only a passing mention; enough to describe them as an emo band, but not enough to start an article. I think it mentions them in a total of 2 sentences. As I said in my edit summary, I highly doubt that anyone's going to create an article on them anytime soon, so there's no point in having a redlink that's just going to sit there forever. While there is certainly nothing wrong with redlinks, they're not inherently "good" either, and really should only be placed if one plans on creating that article sometime soon. WP:RED advises that "when considering adding red links to lists [...] editors are encouraged to write the article first". Also: "Articles should not have red links for topics that are unlikely ever to have articles". --IllaZilla (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Revert in Terminator

Why did you revert? I'm perfectly aware of PLOT. As it reads now there is no sense of flow. You may as well remove it all and say "terminator fail". If you don't like adding a single paragraph, take it to the talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The "sense of flow" is just fine, and the plot section is concise for a reason. There is absolutely no need to go into every detail; all of this is extraneous. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I disagree. I think the plotline describes certain portions of the action and not others. Why, for instance, is it important to know that there is a car chase, but not how the terminator found her? I think both are equally important. I'm re-instating, if you wish to remove it again, take it to the article talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The points included are those that are key to an understanding of the plot. How the Terminator finds Sarah doesn't really impact any of the subsequent events. The car chase is important because it leads to the characters' arrest and the Terminator's attack on the police station, which introduce several key characters. Plus it can be summarized rather easily in a single sentence. The bits about the phone book, the roommate, the dance club, etc. are not really key details and can't be summarized in a concise way, and the plot summary isn't hurt at all by their absence. All that needs to be said is that the Terminator finds her; the how isn't important to understanding the story. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Cough/Cool

Sorry to piss you off i left a comment noting my sources in the discussion page for cough/cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.217.46 (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

21st Century Breakdown and Detroit

If you are one of the Wikipedians who think that every detail has to be sourced, fine. But hearing Detroit and The Motor City mentioned over and over on the album is not an "interpretation". I'm sure you mean well, but try to be a little less snarky. Michaelh2001 (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No source, no dice. You hear "motor city" in the lyrics and assume that means the characters Christian & Gloria are from Detroit, yet not a single source has mentioned that. So it's original research. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

So you go from page to page on Wikipedia and remove everything that's unsourced, right? No source, no dice, right? Or just on the 21st Century Breakdown page? I concede the point here, but you might do well to be a little more wag and less bark. Michaelh2001 (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material, particulary original research, may be removed at any time. No editor, myself included, should be reprimanded for doing so. Some would say that it should be marked with a {{fact}} tag, but those are largely ignored and only serve to allow unreferenced claims to remain in articles for inordinate amounts of time before someone has the gumption to actually remove it. This may fly on stub and start-class articles, but 21st Century Breakdown is well-referenced and currently nominated for GA review, so unreferenced claims definitely ought to be kept out. For what it's worth, I've contributed thousands of edits to Wikipedia, created many articles, added sources to many, rewritten several to add numerous sources, and helped advance several to GA and FA. Frankly, I don't care what you might think about my removals of unreferenced info. You've been active here long enough to know you need to provide a source for a substantive claim like this. Funny you should make a dog analogy, as one often feels like a pooper scooper around here. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Your point was valid - and I've said so and corrected it - but your tone was a little shrill. For example, editor Timmeh reverted a change I made and we discussed it and agreed on a change, and I ended up leaving him a barnstar afterword. All I'm saying is, we are ALL volunteers and (aside from trolls) are all trying to make Wikipedia better. Most people arent trying to "poop" on Wikipedia. That said, thanks for all YOU do to make this a great place. Michaelh2001 (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see your point too. Sometimes I can be terse, especially on days when the watchlist piles up with vandalism, OR & the like. Thanks for finding a source. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Suicide Machines Rarities

I have the Essential Kevorkian Cassette and the Skank for Brains album. Where do you want 'em ;)

Oh and by the way, yea you were right about the EP. :P

Fliptopsean (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually found Skank for Brains at an indie store, so I've got that on-hand. If you've got Essential Kevorkian, you can go ahead & start an article on it, or if you don't feel like doing that you can post the details on the Talk:The Suicide Machines & I'll try to fit them in the right place. Track listing, length, personnel, label, & any other details would be great. And if we're doing a separate article, a cover image. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Terminator Salvation

I understand. I just thought that it would be a good idea to include Mexico's release date in there as well, as it seemed sourced where it was listed in the article. Anyway, i get what you're trying to say. Ryanbstevens (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Misfits members

Seriously, you think a load of unordered text is more intelligible than a clearly organised graphical table??? Without reading the entire text of all 18 members I had no idea who was in when, who took over from who, or who played what. If it was 3-5 members then maybe, but not with 18! One quick look at a coloured, organised table will tell people withing 30secs the progression of members went. But if you'd prefer to leave people reading text (did I offend you because it was your text??) then feel free to leave the table out. :) Smaunsell (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the article body, I'm talking about the very organized, intuitive, and clearly laid-out lineups table that runs down the right side of the article under the "Former members" section. If you read the whole article and didn't notice the big table that runs down about 1/3 of the whole thing, then I'm not sure what's wrong with you... That's a much more organized presentation of the same info. A color-bar graph is a poor way of representing non-numerical data. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Millencolin's new single Örebro

Please don't delete the new single because there's yet no news about it on the net except for their MySpace page. And by the way you can see the cover of the single on that page. The lyrics are here [85]. The single was released today at the football match with AIK. I will soon have it in my hand even. Närking (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That's nice. Find a reliable source and cite it in the article. The standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Just because a song is posted on Myspace doesn't make it a single. I will submit the news to punknews.org; if they choose to report it, then that gives us a good secondary source to cite from. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added the local newspapaper as a source. They wrote about it today, but they don't have all news on their online version though. Närking (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a good start, but you need to provide more information in the citation than just the name of the paper & the date. See WP:CITE: you need info like the article title, author, etc. The idea is that someone reading the WP article would be able look up that original source and verify the info. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course. But I don't have the newspaper at hand right now. And it was advertised in the newspaper. And as I said you can actually see the cover of the single on their MySpace page. Närking (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the little thumbnail image in the music player. Again, bands put songs up on myspace all the time, frequently with special little thumbnail images, but that doesn't mean that the songs are singles or that they have been "released" per se. It's not that I don't believe you, clearly they've released it physically at the soccer game. If that does turn out to be the same artwork used on the physical single, then fine, but just because there's a little thumbnail image in the myspace player doesn't verify that it's actually been released as a single. The newspaper report is fine as a source, just try to get your hands on it & add the necessary details to flesh out the citation. I recommend using Template:Citation for it. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You can also see news about it here [86] and in Swedish here [87]. There is even a video [88]. Närking (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Alien, EC Comics, and Weird Tales

Hi! We seem to be having a bit of back-and-forth on the Alien (film) page, so I thought maybe we should talk about it. The item under scrutiny is the sentence "He has also cited as influences Strange Relations by Philip José Farmer (1960), which covers alien reproduction, and EC Comics horror titles such as Weird Tales which carried stories in which monsters eat their way out of people" in the Origins section. The problem is that this statement contains a factual error; EC Comics never published a comic with the title Weird Tales. They did, as you suggested, publish Weird Science (comics) and Weird Fantasy. They also published Tales from the Crypt (comics), and it's possible that any one of these could be the comic for which the reference is meant. I have read a good number of all of these comics, and while I don't remember ever seeing a tale where monsters eat their way out of victims, it is quite possible that such was published; EC Comics were notoriously visceral and gory. On the other hand, Weird Tales, the text pulp in the link you are adding, was more cerebral, not to mention that it wasn't as comic at all, and it is far less likely that this is the magazine O'Bannon intended to reference. I am certain that the comics were the influence, rather than the pulp.

I can think of two ways to reconcile the facts and fix the error. The easiest is what I have been doing: removing the reference to Weird Tales and leaving the reference to EC Comics intact. Since the sentence is a paraphrase, no factual data is lost, but the error is removed. The other way is to turn the paraphrase into an actual quote, which would thereby place the blame for the error in the source's lap and leave Wikipedia guiltless. In order to go in this direction I need to turn to you, as you have done such excellent work on the article. I do not have the source to refer to, and so cannot pull a quote out of it. Do you have access to the source, "Beautiful Monsters: The Unofficial and Unauthorized Guide to the Alien and Predator Films"? If so, can you craft a quote that satisfies the claim of origin? Page 20 is what we're looking for. If you do not have the source or know a way to access it, I do request that option #1, that of removing "Weird Tales" from the paraphrase, be allowed to stand.

Cheers! --Captain Infinity (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do have the book on-hand (well, at my home...editing from work at the moment). I think you're right, there are ways we can re-word in order to resolve the factual error, which is probably on McIntee's end (there are a few other such errors here and there in the book; not enough to undermine its credibility as a source, but minor ones such as this). I think I'd prefer the option of just removing the reference to Weird Tales and leaving it as "various EC comics titles". I'd rather not have the factual error present, even if it is the source's error and not Wikipedia's. Also I can't think of a way to make a direct quote transition smoothly with the preceding text, so I think removing "Weird Tales" is the better option. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The direct quote from McIntee, on page 20, is "O'Bannon has also cited the way that Philip José Farmer covered alien reproduction in Strange Relations as an influence, as well as various EC horror comis, such as Weird Tales, which carried stories involving monsters eating their way out of people." As you can see, I didn't paraphrase very much. Again, he very well could have the incorrect title for the comic; it wouldn't be the only minor error in the book. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I see, thank you. A further problem with quoting would be that McIntee is paraphrasing O'Bannon. That is, it's not a direct quote from O'Bannon. So we'll never know who messed it up, O'Bannon or McIntee. I think the only solution is to remove the mention of Weird Tales altogether, and just leave it as EC Comics. If you agree I'll go ahead and make the change. Also, would it be OK with you to copy this discussion to the article's talk page, for future editors to see? --Captain Infinity (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Go for it. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Black Flag discography

I'm just inquiring you on the distinction you made between EPs and singles in the Black Flag discography. I'm not saying that you're incorrect, but I'm just wondering how you made the distinction between what's and EP and what's a single. Thanks. Tennis 52 (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

See extended play and single (music). Even though the band sometimes refers to them as EPs, "Louie Louie", "TV Party", and "Annihilate This Week" all fit the classic definitions of singles: they were 7" vinyl releases of standard length with only a few tracks (2 in the case of "Louie Louie", 3 for the others), featuring (and titled after) the lead track, which is on the A side while the remaining tracks are relegated to the B side. The longest of the 3, "Annihilate This Week", contains only 12 minutes of music and both of the B-side songs were previously released. "TV Party" is a single for Damaged, even though the recording used for the single is a different one from the album version. "Louie Louie" includes only the title track on the A side and one other song ("Damaged I") on the B side, fitting every definition of a single. An EP, on the other hand, is called that because the "extended play" format gives it a longer playing time than a single and it typically contains 4-6 tracks. Most EPs also have their own title, rather than being titled after the lead track. In fact, if you wanna get technical, then "Nervous Breakdown", "Jealous Again", "Six Pack", and "I Can See You" could all be considered singles depending on the criteria applied..."Six Pack" especially so because it consists of the title track on the A side and only 2 other tracks on the B side, for a total playing time of only 5:32. The Process of Weeding Out is really the only one that meets all the traditional definitions of an EP, though "Jealous Again" makes a stronger case than the others at it was pressed in the 12" format and is thus physically larger & longer than a standard single. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Need a third opinion

I need your opinion on my edits. If you check my contributions history, you'll find several "Tribes" and "Earthsiege"-related articles. I started cleaning this series of articles, and as a result a member of a community forum started a thread about this, and now anon IPs and sockpuppets are flooding the articles, reverting any edits that remove the bloat in the articles, like lists of weapons and descriptions of the community. I've given up trying to talk with them because they do not respond, and those who do have blatently stated that they don't care about whatever rules I cite, so I need your opinion, or help. Eik Corell (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In topic Tribes 2 You had removed important information, like how the game can now be played free, games that were inspired by it, and what has happened to the game to this present day. But what you stated in the talk page that it was a bit too much on the mod information? Yes, there is a bit too much information about the mod section, and that can be removed. But gutting the whole article, i see no point in that. TheOniLink (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe any of it was clutter. People shouldn't delete anything unless it is inaccurate. For those who revert your edits, good for them. I'm glad there are people with enough time on their hands to replace the stuff you remove. That is my 2 Cents, and I want change back! Perrinoia (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You're silly!

I think you're silly, because you are very, very silly! You are kind of harsh on everyone you ever talk to on Wikipedia. I don't mean to sound rude, but you could have at least a little respect for those of us who aren't trolls, eh? Your talk page is evidence of your snarkiness. Try to cool it next time please? GoatFactory luurves WikiAnswers (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If you could be more specific about which comments of mine you found "snarky", then I might have a better understanding of what behavior of mine you find upsetting. I'm afraid that just calling me "silly" doesn't give me much clue as to what activity of mine you're miffed about. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Running time

All good faith edits. Template:Infobox film says "Insert an approximate time duration of the film in minutes." There's nothing there about excluding director's cut, unrated etc. running times. I also can't find anything in MOS:FILM that states that you can't include alternate running times in infobox, and if it's there, it's certainly gonna change. In fact, most FA film articles list alternate running times (Blade Runner lists four running times, isn't that wacky?). Also, lose the attitude and you'll make friends easier.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 15:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't good faith. However, as you know it's standard practice nowadays for films to be released in numerous different versions (special edition, director's cut, unrated version, extended version, etc.)... Trying to cram all of this into the infobox would just lead to clutter and is really superfluous. Plus, if you're putting in running times, then shouldn't you also put in all the different release dates (since of course the different versions are released in different years)...more and more clutter. The focus of the article is on the original film, and the infobox should reflect that. Details on later versions should go in the sections about those versions. It's simply not good presentation to try to cram details about all iterations of the film into a single infobox, nor does it reflect what is the main focus of the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And as for Blade Runner, there is a separate article on Versions of Blade Runner, as well as a section within the main article, which is where that info belongs. The bulk of the article focuses on the original, theatrical release (see the plot section), and the infobox should reflect that. Same for Alien 3. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I still can't find it anywhere in Template:Infobox film or MOS:FILM, though. Will you please show me? I disagree with everything you think about film articles, but that's neither here nor there. The article should represent the film in general, and as new and different versions of a film is released, that should be included. The theatrical release should of course be the only listed release date as that was the film's original release date, just like with albums. Many other featured film articles list alternate running times (Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, Zodiac - and all of those only have two versions). I'm sorry, but it seems like this is just your opinions.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 19:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not anywhere specific in either the template or MOS, I merely pointed to those as general guidelines. Irrespective of the rest of the article, I find that editors tend to overcrowd infoboxes with tons of extraneous details; running times of alternate versions are merely a prominent example. If there are various run times for alternate versions, a footnote can explain that (see Alien (film)—I was confused by your change there because your edit completely removed a reference that contained a useful explanation of why the run time varies between formats). There's no need to cram it all in the infobox. That, and the original (theatrical) film is the base work; subsequent iterations, while notable and worth encyclopedic coverage, do not supplant nor carry equal weight to the original, and the original is the main focus of the article. If the original release is all that we care about with respect to release dates, gross revenue, production staff, budget, distributor, etc. in the infobox, then why do we ignore that when it comes to runtimes? That doesn't seem to make sense. Ie. with the Star Wars example, the budget required to redo the special effects and add the additional scenes for the special editions in the '90s was rather substantial, yet we don't readjust the budget to account for the money spent on these later editions (which of course would also offset the gross revenue).

It's not something we do for albums, either: Check In Utero for an example—only the length of the 12-track album is listed, even though non-US pressings included a bonus track that would extend that length by 7½ minutes. Same with Thriller (album): The 2001 special edition includes 12 extra tracks that not only would extend the length significantly, but were also recorded at different times. Yet we don't factor any of the special edition details into the infobox. I mean, if we did that for 21st Century Breakdown we'd have to list at least 6 different lengths. And the various Ramones albums that were re-released several years back, not only with bonus tracks but on an entirely different label, yet we only list the lengths and record labels for the original releases. In fact Template:Infobox Album#Length and Template:Infobox Album#Label specify this. Why do we treat films any differently? --IllaZilla (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hall & Oates image

Hi, I noticed that you removed usage of the H2O CD reissue album cover as infobox image for the Hall & Oates article, referring to the (in)famous WP:NFCC. I am not sure I understand completely your reasoning. Obviously a free image of the duo could be used instead - except that I haven't been able to locate one (and apparently no-one else have either). The policy clearly states that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available" so I thought this was okay. Furthermore, I did put a rationale on the image's page for use in the Hall & Oates article, and it even states the above: "There is no free alternative available at present time.". So where did I go wrong?. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC criterion #1 clearly says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" (emphasis added). Not only are Hall and Oates both still alive, but according to the Hall & Oates article they are currently still active as a performing act, so clearly it would be possible to create a free image of them (by going to a concert and taking a picture). Further elaboration of this is provided at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable use: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images." Basically, you can't use a non-free image of living persons (or in this case an active musical group) simply for identification (to show what they look like), such as in an infobox. Non-free images of living persons can only be used if the image itself is the subject of critical commentary, or if it illustrates an unrepeatable historical event. Not being able to find a free image isn't the deciding factor, the point is that it's totally possible (although maybe not convenient) to create one.

I apologize for not noticing the rationale on the image page. I only glanced quickly and saw the large template rationale for use in H2O (Hall & Oates album); I didn't notice the smaller rationale below for use in Hall & Oates. My mistake. --IllaZilla (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted; no offense taken. So I went wrong on the "or could be created" part. It was unclear to me what that was supposed to mean, but your explanation of the quote from Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable use clearly clarifies the matter. I previously noticed other cases where album covers are used in an artist infobox, and I now realize that those cases are acceptable only because the artists is dead. Now, because of my geographical location it will be extremely hard for me to "create one" for this particular artist – I don't think that Hall & Oates tour Europe very often these days. So I will have to leave that part for someone else. Thanks for your clarifications, it's really helpful. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, glad to clarify. Happy editing! --IllaZilla (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalizing IP

I've reported the band member-rearranging IP at WP:ANI. I don't think his edits were blatant enough vandalism to be reported to WP:AIV. Timmeh 18:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Good call. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternative text for images

Hello, I was wondering if you could add alternative text for images to Alien vs. Predator (film) before it appears on the front page? It seems to be a new guideline that's encouraged at the FAC pages these days. See Fight Club (film) and Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events for a couple of examples. I explain the situation more fully at WT:FILM#Alternative text for images. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll take a crack at it. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

{{FilmUS}}

This template is supposed to be used for the country parameter in {{Infobox film}}. I understand that you see it as an Easter egg link, but you should really contest its use there. BOVINEBOY2008 22:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize that's what it was created for, but its use is neither endorsed nor discouraged by the films project. Just because it exists doesn't mean it's perfect nor that it has to be used 100% of the time. It creates an easter egg link and therefore shouldn't be used unless given clear context (and I'm not sure how one would accomplish that with the way this template is applied). --IllaZilla (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It does have context, though. When talking about a "country" about a film, it isn't intended to be the actually country but the film industry. That's just my opinion. But the template does have its use by creating a category for the article. Maybe it would be more beneficial to remove the Easter egg there. BOVINEBOY2008 01:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that providing a link to a "cinema of ____" somewhere in the article is useful, and so is the categorization, but I don't think that a template-created piped link is the way to do it. Perhaps a "see also" section is the place for the link, and of course categories can be easily added without use of a template. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate for a "see also" section. Although related, "cinema of ___" often doesn't link directly back to the film. And templates are used for convenience. I would be willing to continue this at the template talk page for other opinions. BOVINEBOY2008 01:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

AvP

I suggest you check this page. They are called Xenomorphs. And frankly, I thought people would be grateful for having actual information on the page instead of whining about curly quotes that Word puts in automatically. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Damn it. Sorry. I literally just woke up, I didn't sleep well and I'm tetchy because of that. I didn't mean that to be a personal attack or similar and I'm sorry. My tetchiness and my annoyance at having my edit altered in needless ways combined. Sorry. On a related note, why not put TBA in for the release date? It's on most of the pages I go to for unreleased games. Again, sorry for attacking you. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"TBA" is slang, which is unprofessional in an encyclopedia. Not everyone knows what it means, so it's also confusing. If no release date has been announced, then none should be listed. We don't have to put "TBA"; if no date is listed then the implication is that it's not yet known.

As for the Xenomorph thing, see Alien (Alien franchise) and its talk page: the only time they have been referred to as "xenomporph" in the canon is a single time in Aliens, in which it is used as a classification term (it's like saying "mammal" or "arachnid"), it's not a proper noun and has never been an "official" name for the creatures. Every single film in the franchise credits the actor who played it/them as "The Alien". Because of its use in Aliens, "xenomorph" was picked up by some writers & then used in some of the comics and even video games as a name for them, but the comics & games are not on the same level of canon as the films (there is no consistent canon between the various media for this franchise as there is for Star Wars). We don't yet know what the creatures will be referred to as in-game, so best to go with their official name which is Aliens. Note that the title of the game is "Aliens vs. Predator", not "Xenomorphs vs. Predator"; we don't go calling the Predators "Yautja" just because that's what they're called in some of the comics.

Don't worry about the quotes, I merely fixed them to match Wikipedia's formatting and it's nothing to get upset about. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought TBA was almost universally understood by English speakers. And are you sure about Xenomorphs? I was certain that I've read/heard it somewhere else that was Canon. As for the quotes, I don't have broadband, so I have to type up major additions like that on Word, which does stuff automatically. Once again, sorry for attacking you. I'd also just seen this edit which, though I hadn't even picked up your name at the time, annoyed me further as it was accurate and had basis in previous games to warrant a citation needed tag rather than outright deletion and I should shut up now. Sorry. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I get terse sometimes myself. I'm certain about the xenomorph thing, though. See Alien (Alien franchise)#Name as well as the archived conversations here and here for some of the relevant discussion. Your contributions are appreciated. I've done some editing in Word myself and had to fix the quotes later to match WP's format; I'm happy to fix them when I come across them while editing, so dno't worry about that at all. Thank you for expanding the article and especially for adding references. It is appreciated. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There may be some more coming up. I just have to recheck to see what parts aren't already up. As for the Xenomorph, no matter, I believe you. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

AVP budget/gross/inflation

Hi. I'm more than happy with the way you have just reworded the sentence about "most successful film in the franchises" etc, but the film's overall costs are more than just its production budget of $60m. There are the marketing and distribution costs to add on as well, which The Numbers (box office) website list as $35m (they also list the final production budget at $70m, but there will be no definitive way to prove which figure is correct). If you need a source for the info its at http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2004/AVSP.php - or alternatively you can hunt around the net for another source. Even with this figure added, AVP was still a commercial success, but Wikipedia is about presenting all the facts. 80.41.80.25 (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Why did you remove my fact? Clearly the fact that it is the highest-grossing film of 1991, as well as the highest grossing Terminator film is said on Wikipedia, and what you did was not necessary. It was just a simple edit. Why are you doing this? It DID NOT need a source. Things like that DON'T need a source. Why are you reverting simple non-harmful facts? I am getting VERY sick and tired of hearing things like "stuff like that need a source"! Stop reverting my edits! It DOES NOT need a source! If you wanna revert something, then don't revert my edits! Revert someone else's edits will ya, and not mine! Ryanbstevens (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. A statement that Terminator 2 is "currently the highest grossing Terminator film in worldwide box office sales" does in fact require a source. It also requires some explanation; for example, is this accounting for inflation or not? I did not remove the statement that it was the highest grossing film of 1991, as that statement is referenced. Yours was not. As for your last few statements, see the message at the bottom of the screen before you click "save": "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." You do not own your edits to Wikipedia; once you click save, they belong to Wikipedia and may be edited or even removed by others. I don't particularly care whether you think it needs a citation or not, the fact is that it does. If you don't like providing references to back up your claims, then Wikipedia probably isn't the place for you. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That is just bullcrap! I'm reporting you to the administrators! What you said is just complete nonsense! I suffer from migraines you twit! Feel free to report what i just said! I don't give a shit anyway! Ryanbstevens (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Go right ahead. I'm sure they'll be swayed by your civility and respect for Wikipedia's core policies. Suffering from migraines doesn't magically make your claim not need a reference. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:IllaZilla. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I strongly apologize for my attacks earlier. I did not really mean them. I'm really an okay guy, i just get a little off sometimes, and i tend to get angry sometimes. What you did to my edits was necessary, but i just didn't view it that way at the time. And you're right, Wikipedia probably isn't the place for me, but i still have a habit of doing edits on Wikipedia. Anyway, i'm sorry for what i did. Do you forgive me? Ryanbstevens (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to forget about it & let bygones be bygones. I know from experience that editing Wikipedia can become stressful when one does it a lot and feels invested in it, and I've had my share of angry moments as well. I suggest relieving your stresses off-wiki, and I'll try to do the same. Truce. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear IllaZilla

Please don't write on my talk page. Hugs and kisses. --IceHunter (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not your talk page, it's Wikipedia's, and its purpose is for discussing improvement of the encyclopedia. The notice I posted there was pertinent to your editing behavior, and if such behavior continues then I'll continue to post warnings whether you care to read them or not. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

About album title italics

You were probably right in reverting my edit. After looking through a few talk pages, I noticed there's currently discussion going on over whether to italicize article titles if the subject is italicized in the page text. Apparently, the technical ability to do so has just been introduced. I suppose it would be best to wait until the discussion is over before taking any action, although italicizing the title doesn't have any detrimental effects. Timmeh (review me) 03:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Now, going through all my italicizing edits and reverting them simply because you think they violate the MOS is not appropriate. In fact, they don't violate any policy or guideline. Timmeh (review me) 03:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I did it because a couple of years ago I had the exact same experience with a template that would make the first letter of the title display as lower-case. I used on articles like Blink-182, Face to Face, and other musical artists who use all lower case for their names. My changes were swiftly reverted & I believe the template was deleted. I saw this as pretty much the same thing, so I felt justified in removing it from the 6 or so articles you'd added it to. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason that first letters cannot be capitalized is because, according to the MoS, "the MediaWiki software is configured so that a page title (as stored in the database) cannot begin with a lower-case letter" and also because band names are trademarks and we need to follow standard English capitalization rules and capitalize them. About the italics, the MoS says album titles must be italicized, but it doesn't specify that they only should be italicized in the prose. In other words, there's nothing in the MoS or in standard English formatting rules that would prevent a page title from being italicized. In fact, many other encyclopedias do have album titles italicized. We'll just have to wait and see what comes out of the discussion they're having about the italics.Timmeh (review me) 14:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

AFI Crash Love tracklisting

Apparently it's you who is *not* an AFI fan. It seems you don't follow them at all. All songs, including the final one, have been revealed. The last song was revealed here: http://www.bombshellzine.com/focuson/crashlove.htm

I'm so sorry you don't research enough before being an elitist asshole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.147.2.175 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not be uncivil. The album's final track has not been officially announced. The Bombshellzine source merely reviews a 5-track preview that they received; this does not indicate that "Torch Song" is, in fact, the album's final track. It could end up as a b-side, hidden track, etc. The band have been revealing the tracks individually at http://crashlove.afireinside.net/ and until the final track is officially revealed there we cannot go assuming that other tracks mentioned in various corners of the internet are the album's final track. That is original research. Wikipedia has no deadline, so we can wait for an official announcement of the complete tracklist. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I an very sorry for putting unreviewed ratings from Allmusic to several albums. I just thought that practice was valid. By the way, how about this article (To Lose My Life...). arbie (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I just wanted to give you a heads-up. I took a look at To Lose My Life... and its allmusic link was the same situation (just a tracklist & rating, no actual review), so I removed it. Happy editing! --IllaZilla (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

AvP in HorrorClix

Thanks for the cleanup for my addition... I actually included the short paragraph about the sets on the AvP games page because the collector's sets are technically a licensed add-on for an existing game rather than a stand-alone game itself, to avoid any confusion. I can't say that I completely agree with you that the sources are not good enough for WP:RS, but it's an area I have less experience in so I defer to your judgement there :). Cheers! Enigmatic2k3 (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive lengths

Regarding this edit, the length of archive pages may not be of concern to you but it causes severe performance issues on at least two machines I frequently use. Wikipedia is set to flag pages of over ~70K as being too long, which should really be regarded as a hard limit. I'd prefer if you didn't manually up any limits I've changed (for the sake of being physically able to make use of talk archives) unless you've got a compelling reason. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

... Actually, looking at this, I see you went ahead and mopped away tagged the additional archive pages already. That severely inconveniences me; please undelete these don't do that without at least pinging people to ask why they did it. (edit becasue for some reason I'd taken you for an admin.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The >70K flagging is for articles and their talk pages, not archives of talk pages. I have never seen a recommended "max size" (and certainly not a "hard limit") for archives in anything I've come across, and even if there was one it would certainly be larger than ~30K, which is what you split it into. Nearly every auto-archiving talk page I frequent (mostly in project talk & template talks but also a number of article talks) uses a size of 100-130K. I set my own user talk to 250K. WP:ARCHIVE gives no guidance about archive size, nor do the bot instructions. I've never had an instance where anyone insisted on such small archives as you did today. Archives are supposed to be large, as they're merely a record of old discussions. In any case the ~100K archive for Talk:Alien (film) is not excessive by any means. It's also worth noting that the so-called "hard limit" for size due to technical issues is deprecated. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Note also the most recent archive for the main page: 1,112K! And the one before that is 103K. Surely such a "hard limit" of 70K would be reflected in our main page archives. If you can point me toward any guideline or consensus that recommends keeping talk archives small, then I'm happy to reconsider, but again all the talk pages I frequent seem to go around 130K for their archives and you're the first one I've ever seen express a concern about it. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Tell me that this URL does not have a "this page may be too long..." flag for you. What does having a long archive actually achieve? And whether or not the hard 32k limit is deprecated or not, I've already detailed that long pages still cause significant performance issues for me personally - whether or not Q Random Page is longer than this does not concern me, as I'm only concerned with archives that I actually use. Significantly impacting my workflow does not appear to be productive here. Again, are there any actual reasons to insist on longer talk archives? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Because shortening archives to unnecessarily small sizes (such as the ~30K you split the Alien ones into) causes just as many issues as one that is too large. Instead of waiting for a single page to load, you've got to sift through 4 different pages when perusing the archives. Then, over time, as more archives are added and the links pile up in the archive box on the main talk page, you end up having 16 different archives for only ~450K of text, when it could be in just 2 or 3. Yes, it pops up a "this page may be too long" flag, but my point is that this is automatic and standard practice is to ignore it in the case of archive pages. It's meant to apply to articles and the main talk page, as those are the areas where size commonly affects readers' & editors' experience with regard to readability & navigability. It isn't meant to suggest that archive pages should also be kept to those sizes. Again, I've never encountered any complaints about archives over 70K before, nor have I seen any guidelines or consensus to that effect. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you had a look at my edits, you'd see that the addition of a search box to the archives template obviates the need to go trawling the archive pages for old comments anyway - but splitting the pages makes it far less painful to read the pages once that's done. I see no problem with having 16 talk page archives. That it is "standard practice ... to ignore [the warning] in the case of archive pages" does not make it a good idea - it simply means that most people don't place any value in the readability of talk archives (I do) and that a lot of editors have never experienced the joys of viewing 50-screen long Web pages on a low-performance device (I have).

I really don't know why you're casting up this "I've never heard this complaint before" thing, and using that to refuse the request. I'm not asking for a project-wide change here. All I'm asking it that you not go out of your way to inconvenience me when I've taken the time to split an archive up, as an act of good faith from one active editor to another. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Aliens

Hi,

I'm user Wildcard6. I'm more of a wikipedia reader/ money donator than editor. I was wondering: I put the tag line to Aliens in the article last night but you removed it. I tried tonight to put it in the movie info box (which is where it would be more appropriate) but it looked bad so I promptly undid it.

Anyway, I noticed you do a lot of editing and I was wondering where you thought the tag line should go, or in fact if it's appropriate. While I would agree that some taglines are just superfluous information, I think that some (as in the case of the first two Alien movies) are memorable and should be included.

I was wondering what your thoughts might be? Also, I noticed you majored in History. I did as well. In what area did you concentrate? I was a double major, and my history major concentrated in World War II. I had thoughts of going on to graduate school, but I wimped out and went to law school instead.

Anyway, I'm hoping you can give me advice as well as your thoughts on including movie tag lines in movie articles.

Take care. Wildcard6 (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Taglines are basically superfluous unless they can be discussed in some meaningful way (with references), usually in a section dealing with the film's promotion and marketing. WP:TAGLINE gives some advice on this. I worked the tagline to Alien into that article by putting it in the prose of the "Release and reception" section and providing a reference. Basically to be worth including it's got to have some value other than just "this was the tagline". Why was it important to the film? Is it a particularly noteworthy/famous tagline? If so, then it should be easy to find some sources discussing its significance to the film's marketing campaign. Basically you've got to say that/why it's famous, then back that claim up with sources.

As for history, as an undergrad I concentrated on modern Europe, mostly WWII to the present. But I wound up taking a lot of classes dealing with ancient Greece, Rome, and things like that as well. As a grad student my focus has been more on modern American topics: some foreign relations but also cultural topics. I had a really interesting class on magic & witchcraft in ancient Greece & Rome too. My thesis is basically on punk rock, so it's a modern American cultural history piece. But I've really dragged my feet on it (I've been "working" on it for about a year and a half ... a lot of time I probably should've spent working on it has instead been spent editing Wikipedia). Law school might have been a better alternative :)

Anyway, I hope that helps with the tagline bit. Thanks for your contributions and I hope that whenever you do choose to make edits that it's a positive experience for you. Please don't hesitate to ask me again if you have any questions or concerns. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand it now. I appreciate the positive feedback! As to your thesis, I would hazard a guess that you've been reading quite a bit about CBGB's early days. I can imagine that the research must be engaging. Good luck on finishing up! I'll be looking to source the origin of the tag line and will definitely try it out in the sandbox before I post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.170.12 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. If you come across anything but aren't sure how to work it in, just bring it up on the article's talk page and I'll see if I can help. I'm pretty decent with formatting the citations too. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Input request

Hey there. When you have the time, I'd appreciate your input here. Cheers. Rafablu88 13:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Short Music for Short People

Hi. I noticed you reverted my edit expanding the collapsed {{tracklist}} template. Perhaps I'm reading WP:ACCESS wrong (specifically this section), but as far as I can tell it does prohibit using collapsed elements in article space:

Scrolling and collapsible sections in tables or other block elements can be useful to save space and conceal at first-sight potentially superfluous information. However, such techniques must be used with caution, as this content can become inaccessible in a number of situations. Printers and screen-readers will both output only the content that is immediately visible on the page, and these structures are more likely to exhibit undesirable behavior on certain browsers. As such, these methods should not be used in the article body. This includes reference lists, image galleries, and image captions; they especially should not be used to conceal 'spoiler' information (see Wikipedia:Spoiler). Collapsible sections are useful in navboxes and infoboxes and are widely used outside the article namespace; in these instances, care should be taken to ensure that the content will still be accessible on devices which do not support JavaScript and/or CSS.

(Emphasis mine.) It seems to me that "these elements" refers to the aforementioned "scrolling or collapsible sections". I understand that this could be interpreted to permit the use of the collapse feature here, as it's a part of the transcluded tracklist template; however, the fact that it's allowed (if it is) doesn't mean that it should be used. As I mentioned in my edit summary, the "show" link is easily mistakable for an "edit" link, and I'm not the first to find the tracklist hard to find. Sorry, but I think consensus is probably against you here and you ought to reconsider your position on this. Thanks. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 15:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My Page

Thank you for commenting on my list. Regarding #50, I think I need to clear the entry up a bit. I don't mean people over 27 who wear shorts when it is necessary (like on hot days). Rather, I mean people over 27 who wear shorts in inappropriate situations, like... well, I can't think of any to type regarding this, but I think you can think of some inappropriate situations. So, sorry for offending. I'll make #50 a bit clearer. Thanks for reading! --LordNecronus (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Truth be told, #50 is not one I feel particularly strongly about. So I wouldn't really think you're a douche if you wear shorts. Some of the other entries on the list aren't that strongly-felt, either, like #1, #75, and all the entries that reference the list itself. --LordNecronus (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Crash Love release

Don't know how good of a source this is to you but: [89]

I don't know what more you want, I live in Australia and waiting in the store for it, I got one as soon as the shipment came in, I actually waited by the door to the storeroom and was handed my copy as they were brought to the floor, subsequently my friends have also purchased their copies -and- you can read the comments on that blog post were other people in Australia have purchased the album. 123.50.149.194 (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Also here are some more sources: [90] and iTunes: [91] 123.50.149.194 (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Deluxe Edition as well; [92] ;) 123.50.149.194 (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The first one, though it does appear official, is nonetheless a blog, so I'd only be comfortable using it in the absence of any secondary sources. The second and fourth are better, but don't give any track lengths. I can't view the iTunes one because I'm at work, but I've been checking iTunes nearly every day and haven't seen them list any lengths yet. However I just noticed that Allmusic is listing them (for the basic album anyway) so I'm going to use that as the source. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

East Jesus Nowhere

Seriously, Green Day Authority is a source that gets its information from the gathering of many other sources, very similar to Wikipedia's method....you don't consider it a reliable source? The band already released a Live music video of the song....? You don't just do that for nothing do you --Zzguitar14 (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It is nonetheless a fan site, with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, and thus fails WP:RS. If they are getting their info from other, more reliable sources, then just skip the middleman and use those sources to begin with. A fan site is a fan site, an thus a self-published source, and can only be used to reference information about itself. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Bleh alright I understand what you're saying. --Zzguitar14 (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Gheh it was doing Cite Error thing and it wasn't working lol idk. --Zzguitar14 (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Because the ref was a shortcut. That reference (the Rolling Stone article) is used many times in 21st Century Breakdown, so I made it a consolidated ref with shortcuts. You had to go down to the bottom of the page and grab the actual citation, which is under "references". Don't worry about it, there's a learning curve with these things. Basically if you're using the same citation multiple times in an article, you can give it a name and then the rest of the time you just have to use the name. It looks like this:

• The first time I cite it in the article I would put <ref name="Fricke">{{Citation|last = Fricke|first = David|author-link = David Fricke|title = Green Day Fights On|newspaper = [[Rolling Stone]]|pages = 50|date = May 28, 2009}}</ref>
• Now, each subsequent time I cite it I would only have to put <ref name="Fricke"/>

The end result is that instead of the same citation appearing several times in the "References" section, it just appears once and has letter to link to each place it's used in the article, like this:

• ^{a b c d}Fricke, David (May 28, 2009), "Green Day Fights On", Rolling Stone, p. 50

You can see how this works if you look at the references in 21st Century Breakdown. But you have to have the original citation somewhere in the article or you'll get that cite error you mentioned (because the shortcut won't be referring to anything). Hope that helps. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright thanks --Zzguitar14 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Crash Love genres

I provided full sources. Credible sources. I'm putting the genres back. ~ NineInchNailed (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

See my response on the talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts/help

Please tell me what you think of my proposals for wikipedia development. Also could you view source and check the archive bot on may talk page please, I created a blank archive page for the bot to use, is what I have done right? -- RW Marloe (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't quite understand all of your proposals and I'm not well-versed in the language of formatting or technical terms, so I'm afraid I don't have much to offer in the way of opinions. Some of them seem like aesthetic tweaks that are more or less neutral in my opinion, others seems to have to do with navigation and might be helpful. One thing I would recommend is to read WP:ACCESS and related sections of Wikipedia's manual of style: a number of your proposals (particularly with respect to "Appearance and Simplicity") seemed aimed at introducing some pretty complex and rich-media-type features (ie. "navigational attributes should automatically hide behind the article in an animated way"), but one of the reasons that we have a simplistic layout is because Wikipedia is used, read, and edited by people all over the world, with different hardware and software concerns. We have to make sure Wikipedia works with all major browsers and that rich elements do not impede access to parts of the developing world where high-speed connections and large bandwith are not available. Again, I'm not very knowledgeable about these things, these are just my impressions and thoughts based on the guidelines and discussions I've read on Wikipedia over the last few years...accessibility and browser compatibility are important concerns. Anyway, if you want to actually bring any of these up as suggestions then the village pump is probably the place to do it.

As for the archiving bot, it looks like you've got it set up just fine. One suggestion: set the minthreadsleft = to some value. If it's not set, then the bot will always leave 5 active threads on the page. Since you've only got 4 threads on the page right now, you're probably not going to see the bot do anything and might think it's not working. If you set minthreadsleft = 0 then it won't bother leaving any threads on the page if they're all older than whatever you've set algo = to. Also you don't need to create the archive pages, the bot will do that itself. There are some parameters you can set to have it add various notices or navigation tools to the archives it creates (see User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo#Parameters explained), but other than that you don't need to create them or really edit them at all; it's all automated. When one archive is full, it'll automatically create the next one. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking and letting me know that bot is fully automatic and creates pages for itself, I needed to delete the pages I created manually, its working now.

Yes those ideas about how Wikipedia could work better, are mostly aesthetic and some are intended for easier use. Thanks for suggesting where I can let other people know about them, It's something I occasionally will write and will define more about them. I think I will read the discussions on the Manual of Style, as some might be relevant and some may give me new ideas. The complex and rich-media-type feature you mention isn't for Wikipedia itself, it would be a separate browsing app to use on web browsers, for simple reading, similar to Wikipedia Mobile and iPhone App. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RW Marloe (talk • contribs) 18:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, sounds good. Happy to help out. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies and a request

Sorry again I posted at Talk:Monster Mash, in response to your response. Again, that was rude of me to not reply there. I suggest that you read that post and consider the implications of trying to delete every "song by artist" category from every article where the artist did not release the song as a single. That means you are going to delete thousands of categories (apparently) without a clear guideline and with a lot of tactic consensus otherwise. This is not the first time this kind of controversy has come up, so this may be a ripe candidate for WP:RFC to settle the matter of by which criterion(ia) a "song by artist" category may be added to a song's page. For what it's worth, I have been using the standard of whether or not the artist released a cover of the song. If you feel the need to respond, please do so on my talk page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I am starting a conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music to see if we can come to consensus on the issue. I think that adding a "song by artist" category to every article about a song that a given artist merely covered at some point reduces the effectiveness of said category. It seems logical that these categories should only be applied in the case of cover songs if that artist's version was released as single and is covered in the same article. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Good thinking That seems wise. I'll post there. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#"By-artist" categorization of cover songs. I dropped a note on your talk page too, just in case you don't check back here. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Italicized titles

Albums and such If there is a problem with italicizing the names of albums, I suggest that you post that in the documentation of the template; I only found out about it when it was added to Remain in Light and I can easily see it spreading to thousand and thousands of other such articles. Was there some consensus reached on taxonomic names being somehow exempt from this? If so, what was the rationalization? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Addendum I posted that last comment before reading what you wrote on my talk page. I would like to point out that I was not being insincere, nor was I "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity." If anything, I was mistaken. Pleas don't assume bad faith on my part when a simple error will suffice. I think we can disagree with one another without resorting to accusations like this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the wording, I couldn't think of the right word and obviously chose the wrong one. I couldn't really think of a better way to express "you say the MoS says this, but it in fact says the exact opposite". That was before I came across MOS:TITLE, at which point I realized you'd probably gotten the idea from there. I apologize for any accusation or animosity in my comments. As for the taxonomic name thing, I have no idea where that came from but I imagine it has something to do with the fact that taxonomic names are generally in Latin rather than English. I didn't even know about it until I went searching through the MoS for the "mandate" you had mentioned. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Input

Tx for your input on the albums page. Should I try to clean some of that up, or leave well enough alone? --Epeefleche (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being bold and cleaning it up, but obviously it's a lot of articles so no one's going to hold it against you if you don't. Personally I wouldn't try to tackle the whole thing, but if I came across either of those things in articles I was working on I'd remove them. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Tx. Sounds like good advice. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification request

Hi you removed a review from this page [93]siting that it is in a foreign language and therefor you couldn't tell if it met guidelines. You can see only about 40% of it is in Spanish and the rest is in English, the entire rest of the site [94] is in English so I would like you to take a look at this Bigdealben (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was a combination of the Spanish thing and the fact that it's a site I've never heard of that tossed up the red flags. I wanted to poke into it to see if it would meet WP:RS, but I figured with the Spanish I wouldn't be able to tell. I recommend bringing the site to the attention of WP:ALBUMS for feedback: if it looks to be reliable, we might add it to the list at WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I followed your suggestion of bringing it up at WP:ALBUM/REVSIT and will wait the response. Does a site have to be on that list in order to post review links? By any stretch of the term it is a professional review site. Bigdealben (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't have to be on the list, but the folks at WikiProject Albums have a lot of experience examining these types of sites to see if they meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. And if consensus is that it's a reliable, professional review site, then it'll be added to the list so that other editors will be aware of it. Think of WP:ALBUM/REVSIT as a list of vetted sites: it's by no means all-inclusive, but it serves as an aide to editors in their search for reviews. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Emo-wiki

This summer i've started my personal emo-wiki at www.fourfa.info, can i ask your opinion about it? --Schthaxe (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a decent start, but why'd you go with that domain name? I assume it's based on fourfa.com, but I have no idea what "fourfa" means in the first place & the fact that its a weird name with no obvious connection to emo will mean that people probably won't remember it. Also, are you planning on letting other people edit it or just yourself? Because if it's just you, then there's not much point to making it a wiki...you might as well just make it your own personal website with its own look, format, and software design. But then, I really don't see the point in yet another "emo" website basically trying to set up its own definition of what the term means and which bands are/aren't emo. There are literally dozens of those already. This is all just my opinion and not meant to discourage you: if you like it and find it rewarding to create and build, then by all means keep at it. It's just that my internet-related interest in the topic is really only focused on Wikipedia right now. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Initially i wanted to buy domain emopunk.info which was free till april 2009, then godaddy.com bought it. So, fourfa is strange name, steadily associated with old emo, and godaddy didn't steal it. I think for non-commercial site it's suitable. Editing is closed on the same reason that page emo is semi-protected. It's easily get spammed. And i'm only one and have no time to moderate. Initially talk pages were opened, and i spent one weekend cleaning them. Of course, i'll give login to anyone, if he/she asks, but even if no-one is interesting, i'll continue by myself. i think my site has its own look, format and software design (i slightly reprogrammed mediawiki and extensions). for example if you open album page, it shows ordered song lyrics (if site have them). I have no intentions to make a new definition of emo. Instead i'm strictly oriented to other people's opinion. You know dozens detailed emo encyclopedia? i didn't find any. Wikipedia holds on celebrities, blogspot or dischord sites is not an "emo" websites. My site is band-oriented, not definition, review, advertising, zines, blogs, record label, buy/sell/excahnge and so on (metal archives was model for me). Your opinion is very useful for me indeed. i just wonder - why external links topic is empty, and may i ask you to include my site there :) --Schthaxe (talk) 09:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a directory of links, and we have guidelines on what external links are & aren't allowed. We only include those that offer substantial informative content beyond what our own articles would offer if they became featured articles. Your site wouldn't make the cut because it's not a reliable source, as all the information is user-contributed and it does not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Also, your site contains numerous copyright violations: reprinting of lyrics without permission, use of copyrighted promotional images without permission or claim of fair use, etc.). I'm not putting down your site, it's just not suitable for linking from Wikipedia. We're an encyclopedia, not a directory of emo websites. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely copy-paste all the claims because I'm fair user:) So, if hundreds of emo bands made out thousands records but have no "reliable sources" about them, then they have no right to exist on Wikipedia. Do you think it's good? --Schthaxe (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Monster Mash: What?

OK, so I noticed you keep removing my entry to the "covers" section of Monster Mash.

Why? NONE of the other covers on that page have ANY references whatsoever and you leave those well alone - why my contribution? I even tried to back it up with the Amazon music store (And keep in mind, Countdown Singers or Hit Crew don't have their own website, the only place to find their stuff is through music retailers, whether Amazon, iTunes, Wal-Mart, etc.)... I own the CD, so I can tell you right now that it's a perfectly valid cover. And because the exact same recording shows up under both the names Countdown and Hit Crew, I think what I wrote is fine... since it's not known for sure which is correct.

If you have any suggestions that's fine, but I get the feeling you just don't like me - or don't like me mentioning a cover that's not by a famous band - or something. Whatever the case, I'm getting pretty annoyed because Countdown/Hit Crew's cover of Monster Mash is not mentioned anywhere and it SHOULD be... seeing as how it's used on a large majority of Halloween party music CDs (go to any Halloween party store, I guarantee you they'll have that version) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drfsupercenter (talk • contribs) 17:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason I removed it is because your addition consists of more than just "this artist covered the song on this release". If that's all it consisted of, then it would be relatively easy to verify through reliable sources. But your contribution talks about a conflict between tracklisting on different retailers. If we don't know who performed the song, then we can't properly attribute it to anyone, hence we can't even definitively state the basic "this artist covered it on this release". And we don't allow citations to Amazon or iTunes as they are retailers, not sources. Find a third-party source that isn't a retailer, such as Allmusic: they have track listings for most releases cataloged on the site. Use whichever performer they list, or find the album itself and cite the track listing on the sleeve (retailers like Amazon & iTunes frequently have errors in their tracklistings compared to the albums themselves). --IllaZilla (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, well I looked on AllMusic, same deal there. See for yourself:

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=33:jxfixb8hldje

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=33:wbfpxmwjld0e

If you listen to the samples, it should be obvious that they're the same voice (and as I said, I've got it on a CD so I've heard the full cover). The reason I credited it to Countdown was that it appears first (2000, vs. several years later for Hit Crew's)... I just think it's a valid point that the exact same recording is attributed to two artists - whichever is right, it's still a popular cover (given the insane number of Halloween CDs it's on, even looking at AllMusic or any music reailer for Monster Mash will show a TON of discs with it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drfsupercenter (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

21st century breakdown

Regardless of how may times a redirect has been made, if there is an AFD in progress it is wrong to redirect the article. If the AFD results in a merge, fine, redirect it, but as of now I will revert. There is some sort of policy on this, but I do not know what it is. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 15:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, the article was a redirect before it was nominated for deletion. At the time of nomination, it was a redirect. It is inappopriate to revert it to a previous revision while the AfD is in progress. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Request

Here ya go, enjoy! :-) [95] Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked for a "project guideline or standard", and that's neither. That's a discussion, and one that's ongoing right now. There is no consensus anywhere at this time that it is inappropriate to list positions for Billboard's various component charts. The idea seems to be based entirely on the fact that component chart data for other countries either doesn't exist or isn't available, but that's no reason to deny our readers relevant, verifiable information on an album. It may be entirely pertinent to an interested reader (myself, for example) that while Crash Love reached #12 on the Billboard 200, it ranked higher (#5 & 4) in comparison to other albums of the same genre (the Alternative, Hard Rock & Rock charts). There is no valid reason for excluding this information which is likely of interest to persons reading a comprehensive encyclopedia article about the album. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it's not valid cuz you say it's not valid. The Billboard 200 is calculated based on the component charts, which makes the component charts superfluous when an album's already charted on the Billboard 200. It might be great for fanboys such as yourself, but it is generally pointless and confusing to put genre charting information when an album has charted on the Billboard 200. But whatever, you're not hearing any of this. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, and apparently so do most other editors since a vast majority of album articles contain listings of various "component" charts in addition to the Billboard 200. And unless there is consensus established that providing these verifiable facts is in appropriate, then removing them based on your own irrelevant opinion that only "fanboys" are interested in them is highly inappropriate. The component charts are not superfluous: if they were, then Billboard wouldn't bother calculating them. Their purpose is to show how an album performed not just in comparison to all other albums, but to other albums of the same genre, or same market. It is neither "pointless" nor "confusing" to include this information in a comprehensive encyclopedia article discussing an album's performance and impact. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Component charts are important for industry insiders, which is why they are published. Fanboys distort the reason of this. What's important for a commercially established group is how an album did on the Billboard 200, any additional charting info is superfluous and confusing. If it charted at number 12 on the Billboard 200, then it charted at number 12. End of story. That’s what people want and need to know. And no, most articles do not contain component charting info. I agree, wiki is inconsistent on this, as some do articles, and some articles don’t, but don’t try to intimidate me with blanket statements or original research. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"What people want and need to know" is not up to you to determine. This is an encyclopedia. We present facts and let readers decide what is important to them. Just because you don't give a crap about any other Billoard chart except the Billboard 200 doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't care as well. People interested in the field of music, albums, and songs may find use and value in charts like Alternative Albums, Hard Rock Albums, etc. They are not just for "industry insiders". And where exactly am I "intimidating you with original research?" A majority of the album articles that I've had experience with have component chart info. I see that you are now calling my edits "vandalism". The restoration of valid, factual, referenced information is not vandalism, especially when it is only being removed by 1 editor who refuses to discuss the issue on the article's talk page and has been reverted by multiple other editors already. You are the only one who feels this information does not belong in the article, and you are clearly disrupting the article to prove a point. If you remove the chart positions again without forming a consensus on the article's talk page then I will have no choice but to report your behavior to ANI, as it is unacceptable. There is no policy, guideline, standard, or consensus stating that it is inappropriate to include component chart info in an album article. Your removal of them is based entirely on your own point of view and is disruptive. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Everything you said can be turned around on you. Your demanding of the inclusion of the component charts is entirely based on your point of view and is disruptive. Go ahead and report my behavior, I don't give a fuck. Make it a big deal. I beg you. You're no better than you claim me to be. I notice how you've changed your statements from "a vast majority of album articles contain" to "A majority of the album articles that I've had experience with". You're trying to intimidate me with your own anecdotal experience. "Vandalism" is a powerful word and claim here on wiki, and so far you have been the only editor reverting my acts of "vandalism", not multiple other editors as you claim. I have not refused to discuss this on the article's talk page. We have been talking about it here and to the best of my knowledge this particular discussion hasn't been brought over there. It's clear that either you are delusional or need to take a much needed break from wiki, as you seem to have a hard time gathering your facts and are making powerful claims and threats against me. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple fallacies in your comment that I will deal with individually:

• Your demanding of the inclusion of the component charts is entirely based on your point of view and is disruptive.

Including pertinent, verified information from a reliable source is not disruptive, nor is it based on my point of view: It is based on the fact that this is an encyclopedia, that the information is directly pertinent to the topic of the article, and that it complies with our core content policies, namely WP:V and WP:NPOV.

• "Vandalism" is a powerful word and claim here on wiki, and so far you have been the only editor reverting my acts of "vandalism", not multiple other editors as you claim.

False. After you initially removed the charts on October 15, Kiac reverted you on the 18th.

• I have not refused to discuss this on the article's talk page.

Yes you have. I asked you on the 18th to take it to the article's talk page. Instead of doing so, you reverted me with no explanation. And here you did it again. Your first comment on the article's talk page was not until 14:49 today, by which point you had removed the chart information from the article 6 times over the course of 6 days, and been reverted each time. Clearly you need to re-familiarize yourself with WP:BRD.

• We have been talking about it here and to the best of my knowledge this particular discussion hasn't been brought over there.

Again, a false claim. Kiac brought the topic up on the article's talk page yesterday, and that's where this conversation needs to hapen. Arguing the point on my talk page is not helpful to other editors who may be watching the article and interested in the discussion. Both Kiac and Fezmar9 have opposed your removals at Talk:Crash Love#Removal of 'component' charts. I suggest you continue the discussion there rather than arguing with just me over here.

• It's clear that either you are delusional or need to take a much needed break from wiki, as you seem to have a hard time gathering your facts and are making powerful claims and threats against me.

No personal attacks, please. That you should think me "delusional" for wanting to keep pertinent, referenced facts in the article is certainly...amusing. I have "gathered my facts": I have searched Wikipedia for any policy, guideline, or consensus to the effect that including positions from the various Billboard charts in an album article is inappropriate. I have found none. You have presented none. My ability to "make powerful claims and threats against you" has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. You are unable to present a convincing case that these chart positions should not be included in the article. Constantly reverting the article is a disruptive way to make your point. The only "threat" I have made is a warning that if you continue, I will take the matter to ANI for arbitration. This is a perfectly appropriate course of action given the circumstances and the now insulting nature of your comments. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are multiple fallacies in your comment that I will now deal with individually:

• Including pertinent, verified information from a reliable source is not disruptive, nor is it based on my point of view: It is based on the fact that this is an encyclopedia, that the information is directly pertinent to the topic of the article, and that it complies with our core content policies, namely WP:V and WP:NPOV.

The information is only pertinent based on your POV. The Billboard 200 is Billboard’s main chart. None of Billboard’s other charts are as important as a given album’s position on the Billboard 200. This is why Billboard publishes articles regarding chart performance on the Billboard 200, and not on any of their other album charts.

• "Vandalism" is a powerful word and claim here on wiki, and so far you have been the only editor reverting my acts of "vandalism", not multiple other editors as you claim.

False. After you initially removed the charts on October 15, Kiac reverted you on the 18th.

My point still stands that "vandalism" is a powerful word. I removed the component charts based on the fact that the album charted so high on the Billboard 200. Now, had I removed all the charts, then that could have been considered vandalism. On Kica reverting my edit (not vandalism), I’ll give you that. Score one for you.

• I have not refused to discuss this on the article's talk page.

Yes you have. I asked you on the 18th to take it to the article's talk page. Instead of doing so, you reverted me with no explanation. And here you did it again. Your first comment on the article's talk page was not until 14:49 today, by which point you had removed the chart information from the article 6 times over the course of 6 days, and been reverted each time. Clearly you need to re-familiarize yourself with WP:BRD.

No I haven’t. You are clearly mislead here. I never refused to discuss this on the article’s talkpage. Since I had seen you get so aggressive regarding this dispute, I started the discussion on your talk page and never thought to bring it to the article’s page as I assumed this was between two editors. The comment I made on the article’s talk page today was regarding the definition of "component chart", not about the component charts being included in the article.

• We have been talking about it here and to the best of my knowledge this particular discussion hasn't been brought over there.

Again, a false claim. Kiac brought the topic up on the article's talk page yesterday, and that's where this conversation needs to hapen. Arguing the point on my talk page is not helpful to other editors who may be watching the article and interested in the discussion. Both Kiac and Fezmar9 have opposed your removals at Talk:Crash Love#Removal of 'component' charts. I suggest you continue the discussion there rather than arguing with just me over here.

See my statement above. Fezmar9 didn’t oppose removal until 19:31 today, well after we started our discussion.

• 5. It's clear that either you are delusional or need to take a much needed break from wiki, as you seem to have a hard time gathering your facts and are making powerful claims and threats against me.

No personal attacks, please. That you should think me "delusional" for wanting to keep pertinent, referenced facts in the article is certainly...amusing. I have "gathered my facts": I have searched Wikipedia for any policy, guideline, or consensus to the effect that including positions from the various Billboard charts in an album article is inappropriate. I have found none. You have presented none. My ability to "make powerful claims and threats against you" has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. You are unable to present a convincing case that these chart positions should not be included in the article. Constantly reverting the article is a disruptive way to make your point. The only "threat" I have made is a warning that if you continue, I will take the matter to ANI for arbitration. This is a perfectly appropriate course of action given the circumstances and the now insulting nature of your comments.

Hate to sound schoolyard here, but you started it by making false claims, exaggerating comments, calling my work vandalism and threatening me due to you disagreeing with me. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We're still not accomplishing anything here aside from antagonizing each other. We clearly disagree on the usefulness and value of the individual chart positions. The topic is now under discussion at the article's talk page, where it should have been in the first place. I will continue to address it there, and consider this conversation closed. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Looks like we’re gonna have to get a third opinion on Crash Love as you’ve ignored my requests and have taken this contentious topic over the limit with vandalizing the article. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

See my response above. Restoring valid, factual, cited information is not vandalism. Constantly removing the information based on your own point of view, while refusing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, is vandalism and will be reported. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

See my comments above. Let's get a third opinion as you're clearly delusional. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Emo

On September 18th, we discussed the quotes in the "Gender Bias" section of the "Emo" page. While I still maintain that the Pete Wentz quote fails the Verifiability check and the Reliable Sources check, it's up to your discretion to keep it in there (as that seems to be your article). The quote that is wrongly attributed to Fraser McApline, however, is very problematic. Please check the source material again if you wish to verify what I have said in the Talk page. He did not say what is being quoted-- the reviewer, who is a different person, did. Wrongly attributed quotations are a fairly big issue. --S.Reemas, Oct. 20, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.17.243 (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly not "my" article, though I have worked on it significantly. I won't object if you want to remove the Wentz bit. I don't think it adds anything useful to the section. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That's my reasoning as well (on the Wentz quote), but I don't see it being as big a problem as having words put in the wrong person's mouth (the "McApline" quote). I'd fix it myself if the article wasn't locked. That's why I keep bugging you about it. ;) Little things like that keep Wikipedia from being as widely accepted as a solid source of information as many of us would like to see it. It's a wonderful project, it just requires all of us to pitch in and keep it accurate sometimes. :) --S.Reemas, Oct. 23, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.17.243 (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Forgot that the article was protected. I'll make a move on it. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

East Jesus Nowhere fan film

IllaZilla, I understand why you took down the link to our film for East Jesus Nowhere. I hadn't yet read the rules on external links. I have no reason to contest that. But please, calling what we created a home movie?? If you had taken the time to watch it you would not have been so rude. Trust me. Show some respect to my creative work. How would you feel if I called your stuff merely "amateur writing?" You wouldn't appreciate it much I don't think. I have permission from the band's management and Warner Bros. Records to have the video online. They've all seen it and they gave me the green light. They asked me to call it a "fan film" because it "looks so professional it might be mistaken as our official video." That makes it a little more credible than your standard youtube cover video.

I'll take your advice and go google some fan sites now. GreenDayAuthority might appreciate it. Thanks.

In case you feel like watching it now: http://vimeo.com/7152305

-Justin Lomax —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinlomax (talk • contribs) 17:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I admit I didn't watch it, and I'm sorry that you're offended that I called a "home movie" offhandedly. As you can imagine we get tons of spam links in these types of articles from fans posting their youtube links, etc. I'm sure it's very well-done, but regardless it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I'm sure you'll find a number of fan sites and forum communities that may appreciate it. Greendayauthority.com would be a good place to take it. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ramones (I come in peace)

I fully realize that your work on Ramones far exceeds my own, I haven't even added any content to the article, so perhaps I had no right to add the template. When I saw that it was incompletely nominated and that is was is in such good shape I thought it was a shame for it to go unassessed because I'm sure it will pass. If you want to address the review or would prefer I not, it's no skin off my back. I had no intention of ticking anyone off and I am getting the impression that I have done just that. J04n(talk page) 02:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. I actually haven't contributed to it all that much (other than the visual imagery section, which is pretty much 100% me, and reverting vandalism). Your contributions are welcome and appreciated, and I really hope we can get it up to GA. You haven't ticked anyone off, least of all me. I assume you're referring to these 2 edits [96] [97], which I didn't intend to sound terse but in retrospect probably did. I just didn't see the need for "&ndash" coding when we could just use the – from the "insert" menu, which I think is better for editors looking in the edit window than complex html coding. And I took a look at the Marky Ramone image and didn't see any obvious indication that it violted personality rights, just a boilerplate tag that seems to be more of a cautionary note. If it does turn out to violate any rights, then Commons will delete it and it can be removed from the article. But in the meantime I see no evidence that it violates anything, so I figured it's worth keeping. Anyway, keep on editing, it's welcome and I'll try not to come off so terse in the future. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Very good, I just didn't want to step on any toes. J04n(talk page) 02:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've contacted User:DocKino who will look over the article later this week. If we work together on this it should easily pass. J04n(talk page) 00:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Aliens a Comic book Adventure

Any ideas on what to do with this page? I'm asking as you redirected Aliens: A Comic Book Adventure, as I discovered when I tried to move the new article to the correct title. Fences&Windows 02:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've prodded it. We'll see what happens. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

AVP

Hey man thanks for letting me know, just logged in today haha good to see hard work acknowledged, thanks for the help too wouldnt of happened without you :) So what's new? M3tal H3ad (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

haha noticed all the vandals have been keeping you busy, cheers for maintaining it. M3tal H3ad (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I just keep it on the ol' watchlist. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Input

Appreciate your input at WP:VPP#Disambiguating categories. Thanks, Hiding T 10:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well Done

Just wanted to offer my commendations on your dilligent work on Terminator Salvation and the almost constant anon edit warring. If I had one of those award things to give, I'd paste it right on your user page. Keep up the good work! --Williamsburgland (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, happy to keep an eye on it. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Totalimmortal

Not really sure why you keep restoring a redirect on this page. The song passes WP:MUSIC as it has charted, it doesn't matter whether it is the original or a cover that charts, and as it is the same song both the AFI and Offspring versions are covered in the same article.... Nouse4aname (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree with you. The Offspring only covered the song and not the EP, thus the song was released as a single by the Offspring and charted, thus satisfying WP:MUSIC. The fact that it is a cover that charted and not the original is irrelevant. The song was released as a single in some form, and charted, thus satisfying the criteria for a separate article. The rest of the EP has nothing to do with it. The song also featured on a soundtrack, the EP didn't. I don't see why you insist on reverting me rather than discussing this... Nouse4aname (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Charting doesn't make it a single. It was never released separately as a single apart from the parent releases (All Hallow's E.P. or the Me, Myself & Irene soundtrack). To quote from WP:NSONGS (which is part of WP:MUSIC):

"Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

There simply isn't enough detailed info on "Totalimmortal" to warrant a reasonably detailed article. If the only scrap of sourced info we have is a chart position for the Offspring version, that is already listed in The Offspring discography#Singles, then we don't have enough sources to build a reasonably detailed article. The article has been a stub for a very long time; if you can add more detail and sources to it, then by all means it can stand alone, but it shouldn't be un-redirected without being improved upon. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Green Day Template

About the order of the categories in the Green Day template, I thought it would have been better to follow the same order as on the Green Day discography page, which is singles before video albums, as I've put it. Plus the Macy's Day Parade single was missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon Tiger 21 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally albums (even video albums) are listed before singles, but that's subjective and really doesn't matter. There's no article on the song "Macy's Day Parade", and I don't think it was ever actually released as a single, so there shouldn't be a link to it in the navbox. It's a navigation box, so it should only contain active links. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either that Macy's Day Parade was released as a single, maybe it was sent only to the radios, like Walking Contradiction or She. Alright, thanks for answering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon Tiger 21 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Switchfoot edit warring

Based on your edits to the Switchfoot article, it would be appreciated if you contributed your views to the relevant discussion on the talk page. We are trying to avoid an edit war and further page protection, and just arguing through the edit summaries is not profitable in the long run. Thanks. —Akrabbim^talk 19:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just posted in the RfC discussion. Sorry, it took me several minutes after my edit to compose my talk page post, as it includes several lengthy points. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Double Bass TOC on the right

You said: "this causes the 1st body paragraph to be forced below the infobox, leaving a large gap of blank space between the lead & 1st section." I'm curious what browser you are using. The template "TOC right" does not have the effect you describe in my browsers (Safari and Firefox). The "History" section appears directly after the lead with essentially no white space, and the Infobox followed by the TOC are to the right of it, just as they're supposed to be. The gap is considerable with the TOC on the left. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm using IE8 & having the ToC on the right forces the 1st body paragraph down below the infobox. It may be a browser issue; perhaps the ToC-right template doesn't work well with IE. Given that IE is one of the most widely-used browsers, we should probably investigate if this is a common problem, and if so maybe it can be fixed. Our templates should at least work with all the major browers (IE, Safari, Firefox). The situation isn't perfect with the ToC on the left, as its length does lead to some whitespace in the center of the page, but it's significantly less than what I'm seeing with the ToC on the right. In any case this is probably a reason to reduce the number of section headers within the article, or if readers feel the length of the ToC is impeding readability they can simply click the "hide" button at the top of it. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I agree, the TOC should stay in the standard position on the left. Changing the lowest level section headings to simple bold headings seem's like a good idea. And thanks for the confirmation. I will avoid using the "TOC right" template (not that I had any plans to do that, but I might have). --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked the Template:TOC right#Cautions. It says: "Do not place this template so that the TOC aligns with a large image or infobox; this breaks the layout on narrow screens (even users with screens as wide as 1024px wide can have problems). Also, a TOC that crosses a section division is probably a poor idea, if that can be avoided." It's not clear whether it means "aligns" vertically or horizontally. In the case of Double bass it was aligned vertically, but on first reading it that didn't seem like what was meant. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for investigating. I have a wide-screen monitor but I keep my "favorites" bar open on the left for easy browsing, so I sometimes get varied results on WP formatting that is affected by screen width. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Please stop moving my comments. I place them in specific places to address specific points. That's typical talk page procedure. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:TALK asks us to put new text under old text. This keeps the flow of conversation chronological and clear to someone looking at it for the first time. If you want to respond to an earlier point, simply quote it, as you did, or address the editor by name in your response, as I did. We were both replying to Kiac, so your comment should have gone under mine as yours was made later. This is simple formatting to keep things clear. Sticking your replies in between existing ones, although intended to address specific points, has the effect of disjointing the overall conversation because now several sub-conversations begin branching out in the middle of existing replies. If you want to start sub-threads for particular issues, use third-level section headers. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am putting new text under old text. The thing is it's far more effective to address a specific point directly than quoting it and replying to it later in the page. If I want to make a general comment or raise a new point, I put that at the bottom, as I have done on a few occasions. This is the standard practice of talk page conversation (particularly at FACs), and I've had no problems with it before. It's also not advised not to alter other editors' talk page comments. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, WP:TALK is specifically saying to put new posts at the bottom of talk pages, not new replies. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot archiving

Regarding this: the bot broke when the page was moved because in order to prevent misuse MiszaBot only archives to direct sub-pages of the current talk. When the page was moved from "...Musical..." to "...musical..." the archive template wasn't updated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the case, it seems to be working now. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)