User talk:IllaZilla/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Edit of Alien Resurection page.

Hello,Yes I am pretty new to editing Wikipedia pages (I think this was my second or third one). The change I made seemed appropriate because cloning is based on the DNA of the original and,though I appreciate that Ripley had some of her DNA contaminated/mixed with that of the alien (hence her acid blood etc), that wouldn't mean that her clone would be pregnant, as the original Ripley was when she fell into the furnace at the end of Alien3. If one were to clone a pregnant woman today, the clone would be genetically identical to the original, but wouldn't be pregnant.It wasn't meant to deride the whole film as such, which I enjoyed very much, but it is a point which occurs to me whenever I see it. P.S. Having just read some of the guidelines you were kind enough to refer me to when you contacted me, I would say that my edit was done in good faith. Thanks,Rob Dugmore. Bobdugmore (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Though your edit was in good faith, your opinion regarding the plausibility of the premise is irrelevant to an encyclopedia article about the film. If some secondary sources found the scientific impossibility of this plot point worth commenting on and criticized it, then sure we can include that criticism in the article. But your own personal critique of it does not belong. Not to mention that this is a science *fiction* film; it's premised on things that aren't real or even possible. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I feel a little stunned; I thought that the ethos of Wickipedia was that anyone could contribute in good faith, which was my intention. Are you saying that if I'd quoted another source, say a film critic or a professor of genetics, then that would have been OK? Also if the point is valid, does it matter if a secondary source is quoted i.e. one doesn't have to be a lecturer in mathematics to point out that 2 plus 2 doesn't equal 5. Of course, this is science fiction, I take your point, but good science fiction is at least plausible, surely, not impossible. I know one often has to suspend disbelief to enjoy a story, but it is nice if the basics are at least possible. Anyway,it's only a film!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobdugmore (talk • contribs) 22:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand: "Contributing in good faith" does not necessarily mean that all your contributions will be accepted. These are encyclopedia articles; Expressions of personal opinion by editors do not belong. Yes, we all realize that cloning Ripley would not reproduce the Alien that was growing inside her at the time of her death, but this does not merit mentioning in an encyclopedia article about the film unless reliable secondary sources such as film critics saw fit to discuss or critique it. Our articles are meant to cover real-world aspects of films such as their development, filming, reception, and impact; they are not places for editors to insert their own critiques of or dissatisfaction with plot points. As I said before, if reliable sources such as film critics noted the scientific implausibility of the Alien's cloning as a defect of the film's plot, and criticized it, that would be worth mentioning. But merely mentioning it as a plot hole is not encyclopedic. If you really want to get technical, the newborn wouldn't have been sucked out the hole like that either (it would've been sucked to the hole, at which point its flesh would've created a seal over the hole, and the flesh exposed to the cold of space would've frozen or something, but its guts wouldn't have been sucked out like that). But again, we're not here to pick apart the plot, we're here to write about the film's development and impact. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

OK,I think I get it; what I said was probably true, but not relevant IN THIS CONTEXT i.e. in an encyclopaedia entry about the film.I buy that. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobdugmore (talk • contribs) 10:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for the help--I'm learning.Rob.D. Bobdugmore (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks man. If you have any questions or need any help as you continue editing, feel free to ask me. We were all new once, and it can take some time to get a feel for Wikipedia's ins and outs. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

For being the first more experienced editor to tell me how things work without being condescending or inflammatory. FantasticMrHell (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I notice you added a source to misfitscentral.com. That's a fan site, and if they're reprinting the interview without permission then it's copyvio too. Perhaps Thrasher has an online archive, or maybe an academic search engine or library might turn up a copy or scan of the original print article? Just a thought. Honestly though, it seems sort of unnecessary hoops to go through just to say "somebody's mother came up with it". If no one really knows who came up with the name, which seems to be the case, there's little point in trying to pin down its origin. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose your right. Besides; it's becoming a bigger hassle than it's worth and it's not really anything noteworthy or constructive. I went ahead and took it down. --FantasticMrHell (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey man I need your help. I need to know if the citation I used for the Jerry Only page was verifiable or not in regards to the bullying story. Was it valid? Or should it have been taken down? --FantasticMrHell (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Project Punk Newsletter: February 2012 (Volume III, Issue I)

Announcements and news for WikiProject Punk music

February 2012: Updates: A central location to list the shared resources of our project has been created. If you own any books that you use frequently in your editing and that you are willing to share please add them to the list. An article has been proposed for the Punk music collaboration of the month, as part of WikiWomen's history month. If you wish to, please express your opinion or propose an article at the collaboration page. Benzband (talk · contribs) has started to tackle the unassessed Punk music articles backlog. There is more information on the talk page if you want to get involved. Articles Work has been ongoing over the past few months to clean up both halves of the list of punk rock bands Features If you see a picture, article, list list that lives up to the corresponding featured criteria, please nominate it.

Delivered by In actu (Guerillero) on behalf of WikiProject Punk. You are receiving this because your user name is listed in Category:WikiProject Punk music members or on our participants list. If you would like to stop these sorts of updates please remove the userbox from your profile, remove the category from your profile, and/or move your name down to the Inactive/former members section of the participants list. Thanks.

 16:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

RS?

Hi. I've noticed some editors using the site HITS Daily Double as a source for US sales. Do you know if it's reliable or not? Dan56 (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know, though I've seen it used before. The only chart sites I'm really familiar with are billboard.com (for the US) and chartstats.com (UK). I always have trouble trying to find chart positions for countries outside the US. You might try asking at WT:ALBUMS. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sharks (band formed 2007)

Thanks for contributing to the Sharks page, but please go easy on undos, like your recent undo of a photo of a new line up. The photo was uploaded with permission and the relevant permission will be supplied to Wikimedia. Please let the process run its course. WoodyJoe (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

While I appreciate your contributions and your fixing the licensing issue, please don't scold me not to "rush into undos". First, I reverted 1 thing , so you don't need to act as if I were being revert-happy. Second, when you changed the photo I clicked on it, and the image page had a big red banner on it saying that it had a Flickr license incompatible with Wikipedia policy and was going to be speedily deleted. This was almost 3 hours after you'd uploaded it: I had no way of knowing if/that you would be fixing the licensing problem (and it did end up being deleted). So it was quite appropriate for me to remove it. This isn't a matter of "letting the process run its course"; The process is that you make sure the image has a compatible license in the first place, before uploading it. Again, thanks for fixing the problem, but please don't scold me over your mistake. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

noted; as for the reuploaded 2012 image, I know the permission has been emailed, but I am still waiting for it to show WoodyJoe (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You undid a quote because it was supposedly unsourced, even though the print source was given in the text; why not just turn it into a reference yourself, as I have now done? WoodyJoe (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* If the quote is not sourced, then how do I know the print source is to be found elsewhere in the text? I'm not going to search the article's 53 references to see if the source is already cited somewhere; The onus of referencing is on the editor who added the quote, not me. I also didn't feel the quote was necessary, as that paragraph comes off as rather promotional (the critical opinions belong in an article about the album, which we should probably have pretty soon). That said, thanks for fixing the problem. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I asure you I sighed as the reference was in the very sentence you undid, ie. "RockSound magazine (#159, March 2012) gave the album ...". Anyway, I have now started the No Gods entry. Further details can be added when the liner notes are available. WoodyJoe (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, could you give me some facts?

On the page Alesana#Members Could you give me the page thing that suggests that year print shouldn't be in small print? Someone is keep reverting it, and saying it should be in small print, thanks. -- 58.168.47.192 (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:FONTSIZE advises: "Editors should avoid manually inserting large and small fonts into prose. Increased and decreased font size should primarily be produced through automated facilities such as headings or through carefully designed templates." --IllaZilla (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, what's the deal with undoing edits to Aliens and the two Terminator films?

The revisions to the AFI lists are valid and sourced. Why do you keep undoing those edits? What gives you the authority over these articles? --Ldavid1985 (talk) 6:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"Valid and sourced" does not necessarily mean constructive. Please read my edit summaries: These lists are numerous and of a trivial nature, so they are of dubious value to an encyclopedia. Further, your insistence on presenting them as little bulleted list sections shows that you're more interested in presenting them as trivia than any actual connection they may have to a film's impact or notability. In some cases the information you're adding is already to be found within the article's prose. You are also in violation of WP:3RR in some cases. When you are reverted, you need to try discussing the issue or you may find yourself blocked (WP:BRD). --IllaZilla (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If you peruse many of these movie articles on Wikipedia, you'll notice the same bulleted list section on hundreds of these articles. So, what is the problem? AFI recognition is "trivial" in accordance to you?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldavid1985 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

AFI made 13 lists of 100 films each (AFI 100 Years... series). That's 1,300 films listed, and countless more nominated. Because there are so many lists including so many films, the lists are of a trivial nature and the "recognition" given by them of dubious value. It is by the same reasoning that we exclude lists of this nature from album articles (see here): "Lists can be considered as another source of reviews as to notability but due to their proliferation and the dubious value of some lists (e.g., Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Punk Rock Albums of the Early 1980s [a fictional example]), they are to be held to a higher standard. Lists should not be a simple enumeration but to be cited should include prose."

The manner in which you are inserting these lists—as a "Legacy" section in most articles, including nothing but nominations and placements on these trivial lists—does not service the articles in describing the film's impact or why it is notable. In some cases the AFI lists are already mentioned in the article's prose, but you don't even bother to check first before jamming your trivial list in there anyway (see The Terminator#Reception and legacy for example). Sometimes you even take the already well-written prose and convert it to a trivia list (see this diff). This is not acceptable: Prose paragraphs are preferable to trivia lists. The sheer number of films listed makes these AFI lists of questionable value, but even the ones that are worth mentioning (the winners, not every nominee) should be handled as prose within sections on the film's impact. What you are doing—inserting bulleted trivia lists in dozens of articles—is not constructive. Please be more discriminate in what you are adding, by (A) only adding the winners rather than every nominee, since there are thousands, and (B) checking to see if they are already included in the article's prose and, if so, leaving them in prose form. If you are going to add mentions of these AFI lists, please do so in prose form rather than in the form of a trivia list. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Please note that current consensus at WT:FILM is that while it may be appropriate to refactor these lists into prose, per WP:PRESERVE they should not be removed, at least not if there is proper sourcing provided. Additionally, your description of them as "trivial" appears to be unilateral rather than being based on consensus, though perhaps I'm not aware of the pertinent discussion. I will eventually be restoring the lists provided consensus at WT:FILM changes. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether there is consensus that the lists are trivial or not, I don't know. However, I agree with IllaZilla on this. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Live at the House of Blues (Guttermouth album)

The article Live at the House of Blues (Guttermouth album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails to satisfy WP:NALBUMS.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Terence7 (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Your last revert

Extended content

I have to disagree with your last reverts where I showed the stylized rendition. Perhaps you have an explanation. I was following the examples set in other articles including an FA. What gives this time? My76Strat (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC) As I said in my edit summary, typing in all-caps or all-lowercase is not a stylization. Stylization involves the alteration of normal characters or word structures, not merely laying on/off the shift key. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC) You are assuming things not stated, except by you, regarding the edits. And you are reacting as if no other editor considers; or understands policy. It is not the mere graphical presentation, aesthetics of the album cover, that prompt the designation as "stylized". However when you consider the album's representation, the occurrences in 100's of sources where the brand is rendered this way, and often, (as is the case with blink-182), specific sources where the proprietor has declared the style election. These facts, conjoined, are the litmus; for making the important declaration of "artistic intent". I spent a great deal of yesterday reading WP:MOS and several previous discussions. While your position regarding encyclopedic prose v. branding is fair; worthy of consideration! It does not constitute an overriding authority to regulate contributions solely to your expectations. Of the hundreds of independent sources, I have compiled the following list: *herman de vries; **bis; ****spinART; **of Montreal; *a-ha; **:wumpscut:; **(həd) p.e.; ***Yellow mY skYcaptain; **Sunn O))); **Fenix*TX; **blink-182; **matchbox twenty; **HIM; **HiM; **kent; ***far; ***Isn't Anything; (album shows the **my bloody valentine brand); **BrokeNCYDE; *k.d. lang; **the pillows; *INOJ; ***Definitely Maybe (album shows the **oasis brand); ***aMotion, and ***eMOTIVe (albums show the **a perfect circle brand); and the ***In Utero article, an FA, that shows track #11 as: "tourette's". (* = People), (** = Ensembles), (*** = Albums), (**** = Companies) All of these examples were clued to my attention by the preponderance of sources; which told the underlying story of these avante garde artists who dare to break convention; declaring themselves in a non-standard manner. You should also know that several independent manuals of style make the following declaration: "In the case where an artist uses a non-standard capitalization with an artistic intent, the original capitalization used by the artist should be preserved." They go on to give the following: "Examples include [k.d. lang (artist)], [Yellow mY skYcaptain (release)], and ["tourette's"] - track #11 on the release In Utero. (with their own biographical links; not mirrors of Wikipedia) You should note the manner and appearance of these articles in Wikipedia. And also note that where the articles are not titled according to the brand, a mention is made regarding the "stylized" artistic rendition. I recommend you improve upon your assumptions and constrain your overly diligent manner of forcing your style preferences. Even your manner of reverting fails to acknowledge good faith! This form of disregard seeds, and then waters negative sentiments. I prefer to discuss collaborations, and am willing to pursue dispute resolution where discussion fails. I will reinstate the firmly established "stylized" examples in both articles. This is not vandalism and if you are not satisfied you can request additional sources, or pursue a valid consensus; through discussion. My76Strat (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC) I find it somewhat humorous that almost no one would agree with typesetting in all-caps the titles/names of the 1,000s of artists, albums, books, films, etc. that appear in all-caps on their covers and artwork, yet when it's all-lowercase or wonky capitalization editors get all in a twist about "aesthetics", "graphical representation", and "artistic intent". This is an encyclopedia: We are typing sentences in English and following the rules of English typography. How a music artist, or any other entity, chooses to brand themselves in logos and artwork does not have a bearing on the rules of typography. For every example you care to name, there are dozens more in which standard capitalization is used on Wikipedia and in the majority of sources even though it isn't in the brand: eg. Adidas (not adidas), Fresh & Easy (not fresh & easy), Friends (not F•R•I•E•N•D•S), etc. etc. Heck, most of the examples you cited above are typeset on Wikipedia according to standard English. We don't need to make special note of every non-standard branding in lead sentences; It's superfluous and, in the vast majority of cases, not noteworthy or encyclopedic. By your logic almost every article would have to begin with "<Artist Name> (stylized as <artist name>)", eg. "Descendents (stylized as DESCENDENTS)", "Paramore (stylized as paramore)", etc. It's totally superfluous and unimportant to an understanding of the subject, especially when placed prominently in the lead sentence. Your insistence on typesetting names and titles as they appear in brands is silly: On Neighborhoods Blink-182's name is in all-caps, with no hyphen and a backwards "N". Do we now have to note everywhere that this is an alternate stylization of their name? Of course not. We have a Manual of Style for this; If you want to change it, you need to take it up on the MoS talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Your logic fails when you give examples like METALLICA or any other album cover that typesets in all caps because what you do not have are reliable sources that also express the brand in that fashion. Show me one WP:RS that shows Metallica in all caps. On the other hand the examples I've shown go beyond the albums cover into reliable sources. You are not being reasonable and you are attempting to force your style. We'll take this to the next level. Cheers - My76Strat (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have started an RFC on this discussion at Talk:A-ha/Archives/2013#Stylized renditions. I have copied the relevant threads, with attribution, to that location. Pardon me for collapsing this thread, but I consider it superseded by the discussion noted; and will be continuing my participation there. Thank you. My76Strat (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I would have preferred if you had posted the RfC at the MoS page, since it has a far-reaching impact beyond any one article. But I'll read it through & give a reply. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Falling Idols vs. Juice Bros.

The "fact" that Falling Idols wrote the Vandals' "Joe" is not cited on either of those articles. In fact, there's more proof that Juice Bros. wrote it because they actually have at least one recording of it (which you can find at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2jZVFuSjPs among other places), whereas the only Falling Idols songs that exist from their original years are "Falling Idols," "Just Another Day," "Prince of Sin," "Long Train," "War on the Blvd," "HWH," the other tracks from the Falling Idols EP, and the tracks from the When Men Were Men and Sheep Were Scared compilation, none of which bear any resemblance to "Joe." So where's the proof that Falling Idols wrote "Joe?" --JohnnyLurg (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who the heck the Juice Bros. are, but I own the split record in question as well as BBC Sessions and Other Polished Turds, and the song "Joe" is credited to Randy Bradbury, who was in the Falling Idols (along with Dave Quackenbush). That's why The Vandals covered it, because it was from Quackenbush's old band. Also, they're 2 entirely different songs that just happen to have the same title: The Juice Bros. track you linked to above bears no resemblance to The Vandals track, either in lyrics or instrumentation. Listen to the opening lyrics:

• Juice Bros.: My name is Joe / My name is Joe / Don't you know that my name is Joe? / I like to smoke shrooms / And I like to steal food / I like to drink alcohol 'cause it makes me feel good
• The Vandals: His name was Joe / Nice house, good job, cheerful guy to know / He had a family, he was a worker / He paid his rent, brought home the bacon / Lots of money he was makin

See? Different song altogether. You seem to have the two confused. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you that the songs are completely different. Thank you for the clarification. For your information, the Juice Bros. were a punk band which like the Falling Idols was from Long Beach and associated with Sublime, so that led to my confusion. Source: http://www.sublimewiki.com/index.php?title=Juice_Bros. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment?

Hi. Would you mind commenting here? An editor is making an unconstructive edit to the article and refuses to respond. Dan56 (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ramones

Hi IllaZilla,

For info I have responded to the prev discussion on the Ramones talk page and added a thank you to you for your good intent.

Best wishes, Socheid (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Big Black

I noticed that when you edited Big Black's articles you changed the genre from Noise rock and Post-hardcore to Punk Rock. You did this without discussing this or citing a source. So, I have changed the genre back to Noise rock and Post-hardcore on all of Big Black's articles. Do not edit the genre on those articles again without discussing it or citing a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Replaceablehead (talk • contribs) 23:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read Big Black#Music: The band self-identified as punk rock, and it is the single blanket genre that best encompasses their music without getting into numerous sub-genres. You have changed the genres to add noise rock and post-hardcore. You did this without discussing this or citing a source. So, I have changed the genre back to punk rock on all of Big Black's articles. Do not edit the genre on those articles again without discussing it or citing a source. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Val Verde?

In order to comprehend the scene reference to Val Verde in Predator, when does it occur? Ncsr11 (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm watching the opening scenes & I don't see it. The script just identifies the setting as a "central american country". I think we should remove the mention of any specific country and just say "central america". --IllaZilla (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey IllaZilla ...

Hey IllaZilla, check this out: Who Killed Nancy? Ncsr11 (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh, I hadn't heard of that film before. Is it really a documentary? I've read several books on the Sex Pistols & biographies/accounts of Sid Vicious, & the general consensus is that no one knows (or will ever know) exactly who stabbed Nancy: Sid may have stabbed her, she may have accidentally stabbed herself, or a third party (drug dealer, robber, etc.) may have come into the room & stabbed her. Since she & Sid were both heroin-ed out of their minds at the time, Sid could never give a clear recollection & no one else in the building thought anything was amiss; what with having 2 constantly-yelling heroin addicts living downstairs, the neighbors figured they were just having another fight. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a quality documentary. If you have the opportunity to review it, maybe you could re-write the entry. Even without a membership, you can log-on to movieberry.com (a Moscow-based movie/television download site and watch free previews without signing-up) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncsr11 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If I have the opportunity to watch it, I will. I've got quite a few books & films about punk rock, including the Sex Pistols, so I'll add this one to my list of ones to watch in the future. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources for music albums

Hi IllaZilla, I was wondering if you could point me towards a list of reliable and unreliable sources for music album articles. I was sure I had seen such a list before, but somehow I am unable to find it again. I've seen you around lots of music articles and you seem experienced with sourcing and formatting of such articles. I am currently working on improving Live At Angkor Wat and would appreciate your input on the best sources to include. Thanks! —danhash (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Found it. —danhash (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hello, IllaZilla. I'm trying to set up MiszaBot to archive my talk page, but I'm not sure how to do this or whether I've got it set up properly. Would you be willing to show me how? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem: Just plug the following code near the top of your talk page:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = xK
|counter = y
|minthreadsleft = z
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = User talk:Polisher of Cobwebs/Archive %(counter)d
}}

Where x is the size you want your archives to be (mine are set to 250K), y is the number of archive pages you already have (in your case, 1), and z is the number of threads you'd like left on your page at all times (I set mine to 0). There are more intricate instructions at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo, but that's the gist of it. You can also adjust how often the bot archives by changing the |algo= value: mine's set to archive threads that are 30 days old (30d), but you can change that if you want.

If you want to put a note in your archive box to let people know you use Miszabot, plug this template near the top of your talk page:

{{archives|bot=MiszaBot|auto=short|age=30|search=yes}}

Experiment with it & let me know if you have any questions. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried to follow your example, and I think I've got it right now, although I'm still not completely sure, as nothing has been archived yet. Do you see any mistakes in what I've done? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you've done it correctly. The results aren't immediate; It may take a couple days before it does its first pass through your talk page. It runs every so often, not necessarily every day. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Cyberdyne

"I don't understand what your edit summary has to do with un-redirecting."

One of the refs is the film script. Do you know what a film script is? Anyways, that page will need some more work before being turned back into a stub, so nvm. (I don't like that fact that the content is being "hidden away" tho, but at least there's an actual wiki for the series). - M0rphzone (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You do understand that the script is a primary source, and the article can't be based just on primary sources? Your un-redirecting of the article did not address any of the reasons it was redirected to begin with. Cyberdyne's role in the films' plots is completely covered in Skynet (Terminator). There's no need for a separate article. Please don't restore the article unless you're going to substantially improve it somehow, most crucially by adding secondary source material. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:VPG Discussion

Where is this discussion that you've mentioned here going? I'd like to read it. Postwar (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#OnLive and its status as a platform (yes, again) --IllaZilla (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Eyes on Saccyind?

Back at it at M. Night Shyamalan. I excised the Simple Wikipedia reference. Is there anything else to do? -Blake Burba (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) At this point, WP:ANI might be the only option. I have repeatedly and pointedly tried to have him read WP:CONSENSUS to understand why what he's doing is wrong, but it's leading nowhere. With films it's simply a nuisance but with BLP articles it becomes a step more serious, so perhaps a sterner approach is the way to go. GRAPPLE X 05:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

IMO Saccyind should just be indef blocked so we can all get on with our lives. At this point I'm done trying to communicate with him and will simply rollback unless I see a major change in behavior and attitude. Sounds harsh, but that's all I have the power and patience for. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Current/Past Members of the Beatles

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I wish you would weigh-in on this at the poll, I am about the only one there defending your stance. — GabeMc (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm considering it. The discussion is very long at this point and diving into it would be time-consuming (especially considering my tendency to defend my comments and rebut counterarguments, which would entail watchlisting the page and likely dealing with a barrage of replies). Also I'm not terribly enticed by the idea of battling it out with what are undoubtedly a lot of entrenched Beatles fans. Frankly I'm less interested in the Beatles article specifically than I am with ensuring that an inherently POV-based field ("classic lineup"...ugh) isn't added to the infobox template. (Also it's 1am where I am and I have to get up in 5 hours, so I'm not ready to dive into another long discussion right now.) Sunday/Monday is my weekend, so I'll have a look at the discussion and see if I have anything to contribute. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I understand your apprehension, but your silence makes it more difficult for your position to be applied. And now is a very good time to break the hold of entrenched fans, as currently the article's top two active editors are on board for change. — GabeMc (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've just gotten back from a long day and a longer night out. I'll read through the discussion tomorrow and weigh in. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and thoughtful responses. I think we have a compromise worked out now (that does involve a manipulation of the template, but not a global alteration), and I'm curious what you will think of it. — GabeMc (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Why did you nominate the KARTER image for deletion, Juggalo?

KARTER is too bad-ass for a photo of him in his studio. He is at his most bad-ass in the video for ODAM. FokkerTISM 00:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:NFCC. "Bad-ass" is not a fair use criteria. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Alien 2 (creature info. and continuity)

Hey. I made some edits to the Alien 2: On Earth page the other day. I specified the creature info. and added the full plot. However, they were deleted later on. I'm not complaining (and I'm new here on Wikipedia, so it kind of surprised me), but I would like to see a little more info. on that page. --Brandon Lee Prince (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, the Italian Alien 2 is an unauthorized ripoff film. It isn't part of the Alien franchise, and the creatures in it aren't the creatures from that franchise. Presenting it as part of the Alien franchise, and explicitly declaring that the creatures in it are the same ones from Alien, is misleading readers. Alien 2 is sort of a mockbuster, similar to Zombi 2 or Transmorphers. --IllaZilla (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Thanks. --Brandon Lee Prince (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Josh Freese

At the request of the artist I have updated the photo. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillip.farmer (talk • contribs) 14:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Commons) doesn't accept non-free images of living people that merely show what they look like. While I certainly respect Mr. Freese's opinion (I'm a big fan of his work), there are steps you have to go through to use such a photo on Wikimedia projects when it is not your own work. See this page for instructions on how to do so. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Some days are better than others

Greetings IllaZilla, I am a bit tardy with this message, but omission is worse than being late, I believe. I do wish to apologize for the rude manner I displayed in recent dealings. It wasn't one of my better days. And you were not out of line with me. I am sorry, and I'll strive harder to do better, moving forward. Sincere regards - My76Strat (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I've had those kind of days myself. Be assured I find your contributions valuable. Thank you for the note, and happy editing! --IllaZilla (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Misfits "Horror Business" text deletion

I'd forgotten why I stopped contributing to Wikipedia five years ago.

Look here, sir. Since there is no such official citation as "call frickin' Glenn Danzig and ask him," I'm happy to let the text go. However, let's be clear that the information there was not original research, and that there is such a thing as local knowledge. The Misfits were from New Jersey. Many of the references in their lyrics are local ones that are impossible to misunderstand if you grew up here.

For example. If you check the link for Watchung Reservation, something will eventually turn up about the abandoned Nike missile base there. There's a song about those abandoned Nike missile bases on 'Walk Among Us.'

I could go on, but the Internet needs me elsewhere. (Too Much Wiki Business.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.66.12 (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, detailed and substantive claims like those you added require references to reliable sources so that they are verifiable. "Local knowledge" doesn't cut it, and is original research if not backed up by references to reliable sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Televators

I've put the answer to Cedric's riddle back into the Wikipedia page for Televators. I can cite the OED that Areole is another word for areola if you want, other than that, his lyrics are citation enough. As you have a quote regarding the importance of the specificity and detail of language on your front page, I assume you would be interested in directing people to the fact that there is far more to Cedric's lyrics than simply a bunch of disjointed words. On a more direct note, you should see Pale Fire as regards their official commentary on Deloused. Bixler-Zavala is a grade A modernist writer in a den of half-wits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloomingdedalus (talk • contribs) 14:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it again. Your opinion of Bixler-Zavala's lyrical prowess notwithstanding, the image and lyrics appear random within the article, as they are given no context and there is no sourced discussion in the article of the song's lyrical content or what it has to do with the biohazard symbol. If you have access to sources discussing the meaning of the lyrics and their accompanying symbolism, then by all means use such sources to improve the article. Simply sticking in lyrics and and image doesn't "direct people to the fact that there's more to the lyrics", it just creates confusion. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey oh..

I have nominated Green Day and american Idiot for GA status. Can you see that if there are any problem in that articles and it needs final touch up? Yasht101 16:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed, and I think you made some good improvements. I'll have a look over the articles when I get some time and see if there's anything I can address. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind, can I make you a request. I'll be retiring from wiki now in 2 days and so won't be able to look in the GA review page. So please do keep a watch over it address the issues for me. They 2 articles are my first GA work and I don't want them to be not promoted and also I m retiring so cant help. If it troubles you, may I ask someone else? Yasht101 14:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? It's too bad you're retiring in the midst of a 2-article GA push. I'll put notices up at the Album and Punk Music project talk pages to try to draw more eyes to the reviews. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Not many are active there anymore. Should I withdraw the GA nom? Yasht101 14:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No, let it go forward. There are plenty of active editors at the Albums project, and a few at the Punk project. I'm sure I can get some eyes on it. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the help :) Yasht101 14:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: Laura Grace

What exactly makes you think it's ok to misgender her on her page like that? Her name might not be legally changed and she might not be on hormones yet but that doesn't make it suddenly fine to keep referring to her as a man, which she is not. --Pajipop (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I started discussions on the relevant article talk pages. Feel free to comment there. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If you need any help in WikiProject: Alien don't hesitate to ask.

I've been paying attention to the activity on Aliens-related articles as of late, and I'm seeing a lot of spammers/crappy editors. A lot of IllaZilla has reverted edits by [randomnoobiespammer], which is most of what I see, so if you need any help, I've been an ardent fan of the Aliens franchise for almost 15 years, so don't hesitate to ask mate. --Kluutak (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I award you this barnstar for your amazing work on Tom Gabel's page. You have done such great work in such a short amount of time. Keep it up :) Basilisk4u (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Getting close to the finish line, I think. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I think the main thing left to do is to expand the lead a bit. I'll try to work on it, feel free to change anything that I do. Basilisk4u (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go over the gender transition part too. The RS article has more details on Gabel's transition plans. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• I included this in my draft of the wikiproject punk newsletter. feel free to copyedit it or remove it as you see fit. thanks --Guerillero | My Talk 04:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Aliens poster

The version I uploaded was the more widely distributed theatrical poster. May I ask why you reverted it? Film Fan (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The previous version has been in place for many years and in my experience is the more commonly-known poster. What proof do you have that the version you uploaded was more widely distributed? --IllaZilla (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

How long it was in place is irrelevant. To be honest, I don't have proof. I just remember. And I doubt there's any way I'll find proof for something like that on the internet. Oh well. Not sure why you're against the change, but it is what it is. Film Fan (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It is relevant: Having gone unchallenged for many years demonstrates that it has general acceptance as the primary poster image. As I said, in my experience it is the more commonly-known image: I see it associated with the film much more often than I see the version you uploaded. Even the site you got the new version from gives the old version as the first out of several. Since you cannot provide any verification that your preferred version is the "primary poster" or was more widely distributed, we will be sticking with the version we have used for years, and that was in place when the article was promoted to GA. In the absence of any proof that your preferred version was "primary" or more widely-distributed, we retain the status quo. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you see this movie theatrically, as I did? Apparently not. And the order of images at impawards is also irrelevant. Impawards doesn't work how you are claiming it does. Check some other films (Juno, for example). This is nothing to do with my personal preference, and apparently everything to do with yours. I changed it because I saw the page and thought: hold on, the posters that I saw on billboards and theaters back in the 80s were not that image. Having done a little search just now, I found that the blue image was recalled just after it was distributed, because Sigourney Weaver didn't like it. It was hence replaced with the image I keep trying to upload. The Wikipedia articles for the other films with on this list do not use the recalled posters, because they were only seen briefly: http://www.moviepostercollectors.com/MPC_Showcase_Recalled.html

For confirmation that this poster was recalled, see Google: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&biw=1366&bih=643&q=aliens+poster+%22recalled%22&oq=aliens+poster+%22recalled%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...837689.839891.0.840513.3.3.0.0.0.0.248.365.2j0j1.3.0...0.0.cUBfo_U9T70

Please stop reverting my changes. I know what I'm doing. It's not about personal preference and I'm not interested in getting into arguments. Film Fan (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Project Punk Newsletter: May 2012 (Volume III, Issue II)

Announcements and news for WikiProject Punk music

May 2012: Updates: The project is trying to get a spot in the WikiProject report of The Signpost. For more information check the talk page. The article proposed for Punk music collaboration of the month (as part of WikiWomen's history month) received no substantial edits. If you still wish to get involved more information is available at the talk page The unassessed Punk music articles backlog has been tackled, thanks to pjoef (talk · contribs). Articles Work has been ongoing over the past few months to clean up both halves of the list of punk rock bands Green Day and American Idiot have been nominated for Good Article Status by Yasht101 (talk · contribs) 21st Century Breakdown has been put up for a peer review by TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs) Tom Gabel has been substantially expanded and rewritten by IllaZilla (talk · contribs) Features If you see a picture, article, or list that lives up to the corresponding featured criteria, please nominate it.

Delivered by In actu (Guerillero) on behalf of WikiProject Punk. You are receiving this because your user name is listed in Category:WikiProject Punk music members or on our participants list. If you would like to stop these sorts of updates please remove the userbox from your profile, remove the category from your profile, and/or move your name down to the Inactive/former members section of the participants list. Thanks.

Cheers,

benzband (talk) & Guerillero | My Talk 06:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I won't let them get me down, thanks for the support. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Report it!

Is your name Garry? Just asking because there is (or was) a Facebook page called "Gary Illazilla sucks". I'm not sure if it still exist, it's just a heads up. I saw it as I was browsing pages on Facebook. — ıʇɐʞǝɐdʌɐиƭɐqǝoɟʎouɹqoɐʇ (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, no connection. Ran a quick FB search & didn't find it. Don't know if it was directed at me, but seems to be gone in any case. Thanks for the heads-up. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

WP Punk Music in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Punk Music for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The Prometheus Alternative

Dear IllaZilla:

Thanks for your notes. You had arguments while noting, instead of just kicking my lengthy contributions within one (!) minute without reading them, twice. This is what others did.

Let see your notes. "calling other editors "Hitler" and "Stalin" - disagree. No one called any of them Hitler or Stalin, see my note for precision. "The content you added is not appropriate for this article" - agree. I made re-writing and I will show this to you. "grammatical errors" - agree. "a lot of" them - disagree. The word "lot" in the phrase covers something else what I did. "original research" - agree, the fault was mine, I placed poor references instead of proving: this is not an original research. "totally unrelated" - disagree. The truth is, with your words, "the 2 are substitutes for each other". The fault was again mine, in the article I failed to prove this clear way. "It would perhaps be appropriate to a separate article about Demme's film" - agree again, and probably I will do it.

However, the biggest problem is, that your Prometheus article does not allow to present that DO exist an alternative of the Scott's movie (as I am ready to prove), and DO there is a way to express the Scott's movie's content on an other path. What your no-alternative-article suggests: think on the film's content that way as the movie does! We are not willing to show you anything else! Though we are neutral, and we are encyclopaedic. Oh please! ...I think a maximum of 4-5 lines subarticle could correct everything, and within 1-2 days I will show it to you, for decision.

Anyhow, dear IllaZilla, there are big differences between visiting editors and editors in power. Editors in power can judge superficial way, visitors can not, editors in powers can refuse the dispute, while visitors can not, and so on, up to at least dozen items. Power can easily distort people. Lots of editors think that he or she is the guard of neutrality and fairness, though, if analyzing this with precision, sometimes they are just the clowns of their selfish power, sorry. You are an exception - though you too very easy way throw the phrase "unsourced claims", "original research", and so on - but you are still an exception, and that's why I addressed this lengthy note to you. Please notify me, that you want to check my re-written short subarticle on the issue, or not.

Yours, Achstein2222y Achstein2222y (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, you are incorrect in presenting Demme's as an "alternative" of Scott's film. This suggest that the 2 are related somehow: that they are different interpretations of the same story or follow the same plot but present themselves differently. Neither is the case. These are 2 very different sci-fi films that just happen to have the same title. Going on about Demme's film in an article about Scott's film is not pertinent. As I said, lengthy discussion of Demme's film should go either in the article about Demme or in a new article about his film. To start one, see Wikipedia:Your first article. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear IllaZilla:

Your are a gentlemen by all means, thanks for your reply. Though I would be able to prove, that the Scott's and the Demme's movies are alternative versions by even your terms, but to elaborate this needs a lot of time, and I do not want to make now my second doctoral thesis. Instead, I wrote a short text, that possibly would be able to inform the public about the other way of thinking on the Scott's issue, and about the other artistic creations on the issue. Please see this proposed subarticle supposed to be placed right after the Sequel section:

Movies with similar content

Zoltan Deme's sci-fi horror film, titled too Prometheus [1], also turns back to the ancient centuries to discover something about the origination and destination of mankind [2]. Tony Harrison's film (titled also Prometheus [3] ) too makes a journey towards the ancient region, but it makes it inside the human soul, searching for, psychoanalytic way, the alien and animal elements of the human psyche [4]. Meanwhile the Prometheus movie [5] of Vlado Kristl, the German filmmaker, observes the difference between the supposed, and the real human being that has very ancient origin, with humor and irony [6].

[1] http://zoltandemmeworks.net/page4temp4.html

[2] Terrence Brown: "Philosopher and Traveler", New York Post, New York City, October 17, 1989.

[3] Mark Ford: "Prometheus by Tony Harrison", London Review of Books, May 13, 1999.

[4] Byrne, Sandie (1997): "Tony Harrison Loiner". Oxford Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-1981-8430-1

[5] http://www.filmportal.de/film/prometheus_8911b8195a8e4294a0c7dbfb575a4949

[6] Christian Schulte (2010): "Vlado Kristl. Die Zerstörung der Systeme", Verbrecher Verlag. ISBN 978-3-935843-94-2

And that is all. I think this resolves perhaps the problem and the Prometheus article will be more informative.

Please tell me what you think.

Yours,

Achstein2222y

Achstein2222y (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

While it's interesting to note films with similar themes, I still strongly disagree that these are, as you say, "alternative films". That phrasing suggests that the films were made with knowledge and intent of one another: that is to say, that Scott was aware of these other films, knew about their themes, and intentionally structured his film around similar themes (or something to that effect). There do not appear to be any reliable sources to verify any concrete connections between Scott's Prometheus film and any of these other films also titled Prometheus. The general idea that they are sci-fi films dealing with questions of the origin of humanity does not mean that they are directly connected, or "alternative versions" of one another, or that a discussion of Scott's film should include discussion of other films titled Prometheus (personally I find the thematic connections not too surprising, considering the nature of the name Prometheus: a Greek myth dealing with the early history of mankind, specifically a titan who gives fire to man).

While the thematic similarities you note are certainly interesting, they are nonetheless original research, which Wikipedia does not deal in. In order to present some connection between Scott's film and these other films, you need to come up with reliable third-party sources that specifically support those connections. Placing the text above into the article would be to de facto suggest connections between these various films and Scott's, connections which the sources themselves do not make. This is considered synthesis: taking various sources and putting them together to advance a claim that the sources themselves do not specifically support.

It is quite possible that, after Prometheus is released, film critics or scholars may draw thematic connections to these other films and publish discussions of such (as many have published discussions of Alien drawing connections between it and prior/subsequent works). However, until such connections are published in reliable third-party sources, it is not appropriate for us to present them on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I hope that is a position you can respect. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear IllaZilla:

You right, your position is respected.

However, all the paragraphs of the article still hide the fact from the eyes of the people, that other noted Prometheus movies exist. More, the title of the article "Prometheus (film)" suggests that this is the Prometheus film of the human history and nothing else. And more, concealing the same-way-titled films, rival movies, violates the Information Act of many countries of the world.

To avoid all of this, why not to list (just simply list) the other noted Prometheus films, in a subarticle this way:

Movies with the same title (or, Films titled same way, or, Other Prometheus movies)

Prometheus, a sci-fi horror movie directed by Zoltan Deme (2012). (Read more, etc., sources, but if you think I can do the list without this additon).

Prometheus, a dramatic movie directed by Lis Anna (2008). (Read more, etc., sources, but if you think I can do the list without this additon).

Prometheus, a psychological movie directed by Tony Harrison (1998). (Read more, etc., sources, but if you think I can do the list without this additon).

Prometheus, an ironical movie directed by Vlado Kristl (1965). (Read more, etc., sources, but if you think I can do the list without additon).

If with no sources, this is not an original research, all the authors recently are present and all the movies recently are mentioned in the Wikipedia. This list complies with the Infomation Act of minimum of twenty major countries of the world (may be more, about 20 I am familiar). Last, but not least, we will not mislead the recently one hundred thousands daily visitors of the article: that, this one, the Scott's one, is the Prometheus movie of the human civilization. I fully respect him and like his jobs, and I am hundred percent sure that he would be the first person who is against of such misleading.

Please, from my part, feel free to discuss this problem with other editors if you wish. You, and your both elegant and deep notes helped a lot to find the looks-like-proper way to enrich this Wikipedia article - because, as I feel, the appropriate resolution is not too far now - and probably you can also see this time, that I am fighting for Wikipedia and not for my private truth and victory.

Yours,

Achstein2222y

Achstein2222y (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you that, by not discussing these other films in an article about Scott's film, Wikipedia is somehow "hiding facts from the eyes of the people" or violating the Freedom of Information act. This certainly isn't some form of information suppression; Wikipedia is in no way legally or morally obligated to provide information on everything, in fact there are a great deal of things Wikipedia deliberately excludes. This is not meant to be an article about all films ever titled Prometheus; it's an article about a specific film. If you believe these other films are notable and can gather some secondary sources that discuss them, you are more than welcome to start articles about them. If that were to happen, we would disambiguate the titles of the various articles in order to distinguish them from each other, for example "Prometheus (1998 film)", "Prometheus (Ridley Scott film)", "Prometheus (Zoltan Deme film)", or some other workable scheme. Since we only have 1 article about a film titled Prometheus at the moment, we use the title "Prometheus (film)" for the article (to disambiguate it from other articles about non-film topics also titled Prometheus). That is in no way meant to imply that this is the only film ever titled Prometheus, but it is the only one Wikipedia has an article about at this time. That can of course change if interested editors like yourself write new articles about other films with the same title.

Wikipedia does not have "subarticles" in the way you are describing: a subsection of the article listing other works of the same or similar title. For that function, Wikipedia has disambiguation pages. In this case we have the page Prometheus (disambiguation); it would certainly be pertinent to list these other films there, under the "Film and television" section, and provide links to the most pertinent extant articles. For example, you could add to that section:

• Prometheus, a 1965 film by Vlado Kristl
• Prometheus, a 1998 film by Tony Harrison
• Prometheus, a 2008 drama film by Lis Anna
• Prometheus, a 2012 science fiction film by Zoltan Deme

That would be a perfectly acceptable way to let readers know there are other films titled Prometheus, even though Wikipedia does not at this time have articles about them. I think we're starting to get on the right track here. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear IllaZilla!

Though I followed your advice and placed in the Prometheus (disambiguation) article the list of the Prometheus movies (exactly as you wrote the text) I am still very strongly disagree on the original issue. There is a long (but well proportioned) article - Prometheus (film) - but with a short and bold reference list of other same-way-titled sci-fi and horror movies we do not make it more informative, fair, and consistent. Thousands of Wikipedia articles on Art, Drama, or Movie have the simple lists of the same-titled masterpieces, and these rather enrich the Wikipedia; but we do not enrich and make more fair this article.

However, the editors will face this problem, as the number of the visitors grows, as I just have seen in the Rev.History site that there are other people also claim this information. I think it would be better to find the proper "wiki" way of placing this reference info somehow into the article, and editors in power, like you, know this way better than me, the visiting editor.

I feel still uncomfortable myself, because I left people on that belief that this is the sole Prometheus film of the civilization. (Disambiguation article does not resolve this problem: only around ten thousands people per day visit that article while one hundred fifty thousand the Scott's movie article). Though I strongly disagree, I'd like to say thanks for you, have nice weekend, nice days and good health.

Yours

Achstein2222y

Achstein2222y (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear IllaZilla!

I just read your notes on the Wikipedia. Let me paste it:

Suspected sockpuppets: Brahsaaaaar10 Petermooo3 Ray222mond Kevinklee

These are all single-purpose accounts making the exact same edit to Prometheus (film): The addition of an "Other Prometheus film" section to the bottom of the article: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Of the 5, only the Kevinklee account has any prior edits (all from 29 October 2010). The nature and content of the edits and arguments are far too similar (nay, identical) to be coincidence. Both Achstein2222y and Ray222mond have accused those who've reverted them of being akin to Hitler, Stalin, and "dictators": [11] [12]. Achstein2222y and Kevinklee have both used the argument that by excluding this section, Wikipedia is somehow violating the Freedom of Information Act: [13] [14] [15]. I've been having a perfectly civil discussion about the issue with Achstein2222y on my talk page, but I can't ignore this sudden flurry of SPAs making nearly identical edits to Achstein2222y's. If these accounts aren't the same person, they're almost certainly in cahoots. IllaZilla (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... You are working hard for the Wikipedia, so please see clear: kevinklee is my lawyer, an expert of international matters. The other guys I do not know who they are, but probably they also feel, that something is wrong with that type of methods of editing of the article what "editors in power" use. Anyhow, today, seeing that how editors in power work, I asked Kevin to help me for the freedom of information. (Yes, still there are people ready to fight for the freedom of information!) Kevin was a visiting contributor of the Wikipedia, but he put the thing aside years ago seeing that the "editors in power" are first of all the cacodamons of power (otherwise this is the reason that the number of editors of Wiki is now less than a half as it was in the previous years: not too much visiting editor wants to become full power editor and work in a team full with dictators, selfish persons fully drunk with their power, so, you will see soon how the Wiki will go down, and that is a very bad thing - however, you are still an exception with your honest and clean attitude when providing intellectual services). Do you think, is that normal, as, for instance, Darkwarriorblake acts, almost with no eating no sleeping just to revert and revert things mainly for his own sake, considering Wikipedia article like his own kid, and becoming sad and agressive if the "kid" is not solely under his will and control? No, the human life means much more, than this.

People loose their reality control beacause of their power many times. I was fully shocked when just surfing on the Internet I saw this Prometheus article about a week ago recognizing that no one knows among the "official" editors, what is happening here. This was the reason I tried to show the other side of the matter, first with a new, later on with three older creations. But nothing you can do, editors follow their feelings, personal judgements (accusing the visitor contributors with promoting in the article films made between 1965-2012!) and, they are happy with their power, they live almost for the joy of this power, and the whole thing now is a life style for them -- while they does not follow the law!!! I asked Kevin, maybe, am I wrong? He said, I am right, and put on some notes to the article. Thrown away, the all. Lets do the rest by Kevin. Freedom and fair information is very important: travel to Cuba or North-Korea, and you will see how this matter is.

The all thing will be not connected to you, you are not drunk because of the power, with your above pasted notes you solely wanted to serve the quality of Wikipedia. I understand you. Though I disagree on the issue, though I see freedom and information problems opposite way as you, I still appreciate your efforts, as you tried to conduct me in the world of the Wikipedia. I am not interested to be an editor, my life goes fully other ways, so probably we never connect each other. But as young guys consider the advices of olders, please think on that to be a visiting editor for couple of weeks, and you will see much more clear the world of Wikipedia, and your activities will make probably much more wealth for the people by this proposed experience.

Be happy, satisfied, and have very good health.

Yours

Achstein2222y — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achstein2222y (talk • contribs) 08:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know your opinion

Hello IllaZilla, I'd like to see your regards related to the recent comments and move discussed here. I don't really care what happens, and I am probably done commenting, but I would just like to see your thoughts as well. My76Strat (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Alien (creature in Alien franchise)

Hi. Have you seen Prometheus? If not, I won't say any more as I don't want to spoil it for you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't out in the U.S. until this Friday. I've seen some of the edit summaries and the claims in the film article's plot section. Unless the creature shown is explicitly the same ones as those in the Alien franchise, then it isn't an Alien. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks pretty explicit to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like your personal interpretation. From what I've heard from others, it's substantially different. There may be some discussion of this at Talk:Prometheus (film). --IllaZilla (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, my view, but... no, I won't say any more :-) I'll be interested to hear what you think when you've seen it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Kevinklee

Thanks for making the report! FYI, the case has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brian dalee. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed. Thanks for helping with this one. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. It's not necessary to leave the SPI notice on all those users' talk pages, particularly since they were blocked by the checkuser who discovered them, but thanks for the help. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox question

Are you still planning to do anything with User:IllaZilla/Germs (band)? I noticed you haven't touched it in over a year. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am, it just got left on the back-burner. I was trying to work on that and User:IllaZilla/Darby Crash at the same time, but real life got in the way & eventually I got distracted by other WP stuff. Thanks for reminding me of it; I'll see if I can get back into it. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem

Good. I've been accused of being too hasty, so I was gonna give it 'till Sunday. You saved me the trouble of having to come back--thanks!

— UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 00:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Your removal of other editors' comments at Talk: Prometheus (film)

Removing (or refactoring) other editors' discussions from Talk pages is particularly frowned up; even if it is content you believe somehow violates your understanding of WP guidelines.

WP:REFACTOR notes that editing others' text is only allowable under certain conditions; and outright removal may only be done in very limited circumstances:

Pruning text – should only be done with the original author's consent, or with good cause under policy.

• Removing, striking or hiding personal attacks
• Hiding redundant, outdated, or otherwise superfluous material from view
• Relocation of text to different pages where it is more appropriate

Likewise, WP:TALK states, "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission."

The sole possible exception to which your comment deletion has any connection is:

Refactoring for relevance: Archiving material not relevant to improving the article... Formerly it was not uncommon to simply delete off-topic posts, but this has led to disputes from time to time, and it is generally better to move such threads to an archive page (emphasis mine). It is still common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article) and test edits, as well as harmful or prohibited material as described above. Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion.

However, the discussion you deleted was not gibberish, rants, tests, harmful or prohibited; nor was it off-topic (as much as you may think it is) or an entirely personal commentary. You certainly didn't ask, nor were given permission to remove it. You've now reverted your deletion to the talk page twice, with the last one tiptoeing into uncivil edit summary. I won't be reverting again; however, I'd strongly suggest you return the text as it was. Ignore the topic, and let it be archived when it is done being read and commented upon. Otherwise, I will ask another, non-participating editor to look in for a neutral third opinion. --HidariMigi (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:REFACTOR is a how-to, not a policy or even a guideline. WP:TALK is a guideline, and says "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." (emphasis mine). WP:NOTFORUM is policy, and says "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article". The content I removed was general discussion of the film's plot; some editor presenting what they perceived as plot holes in the film, and your response with your own opinions/interpretations of it. It was "general conversation about the article's subject", not discussion of the Wikipedia article or how to improve it. I do not require or desire permission to remove it, nor will I be restoring it. Ignoring it will simply invite further general chit-chat about the film, which is not the purpose of article talk pages. Posts of this nature are routinely removed without controversy across the project. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I obviously disagree; and whatever your feelings on whether it was "chit-chat," you are not free to remove discussions by other editors at your whim. Full stop. Likewise, you are inaccurate in characterizing WP:REFACTOR as having no relevance -- it is a process page which provides a practical elucidation of policy. As noted at the top of every how-to, "This page is a how-to guide detailing a practice or process on the English Wikipedia." It doesn't set policy because it is based in the policy/guideline.

Further, the section you removed was not "irrelevant" nor a "general discussion." In particular:

1. The editor originally commented on his observations of an apparently unexplained plot point, that the medical pod was set for male in Meredith Vickers' lifeboat, and noting a possible (in his view) explanation, however: "I don't want to include this in the article as fan theory, of course, but it seems like there's some value in including just the factual points."
2. I replied that the observation was a misunderstanding-- that the film itself suggested the pod was set for male for Peter Weyland, as the character of Vickers was not expected to be on the ship. My point is that the description of Vickers in the article is inaccurate-- she is not a "Weyland Corporation employee, sent to monitor the expediton" (sic) -- she is director-level management who chose to go on the mission for her own reasons, and provide concrete direct quotes from the movie for verification. (This might lead to a discussion of whether the source cited for much of the cast content from "Inquirer.net" of the Philippines should be replaced with something more reliable.)

Had you bothered to think about the discussion, rather than hastily deleting something you found disagreeable, you might have realized the value of the comments. In sum, you now have the option of graciously conceding the point, or having another editor come in to support my understanding of WP mores. --HidariMigi (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're looking for concession, or some sort of apology, you're barking up the wrong tree. A how-to page is irrelevant when the policy/guideline pages superseding directly state that talk pages are not for general discussion and that general comments about article subjects may be removed. Any editor is free to remove such comments. Full stop. The original comment was clearly general discussion of the film's plot, not of Wikipedia's treatment of the subject. Your picking apart of the comment does not convince me otherwise, and I do not see any value in retaining such comments. Your disagreement on these points is noted. That said, I am disinterested in further discussing this and consider the matter closed, which leaves you free to take any action you wish. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It's clear that you have your own particular understanding of how to best serve Wikipedia. I'll have another editor look at the issue. Also: just because you say "I am disinterested in further discussing this and consider the matter closed" doesn't make the matter "closed," particularly when it involves contravening the standard practice of not editing others' legitimate comments. Even if you were Jimbo Wales, you just don't get the authority to "close matters" all on your own. --HidariMigi (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I said I consider the matter closed. I should clarify: I feel that my removal of the comments was justified by both policy and guideline, and am disinterested in debating that issue with you any further. It seems to come down to our differing opinions on whether the comments were "general discussion", and neither of us appears to be convincing the other. Left unchecked, talk pages of articles about newly-released films have a tendency to turn into a forum filled with general discussion of the film. It's simply my wish to keep such general discussion off of Talk:Prometheus (film), in the interest of keeping the talk page germane to improving Wikipedia's treatment of the film rather than seeing it turn into a forum of people's opinions of the movie. When the comment in question reads as "I just got back from seeing the film; here are some plot holes I noticed...", it strikes me as pretty clearly falling under NOTFORUM. Obviously you're not going to let this one go, and ultimately whether these particular comments are restored or not concerns me little, so you are free to restore them if you wish and I will not interfere. You can go on discussing the matter with whomever you like, but I'm done with it. I have the authority to pick my battles, to decide which matters I'm interested in pursuing further and which I'm not, and this is a case of the latter. Happy editing. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree that general discussions are not appropriate for WP article talk pages. But general discussion comes down to things like "I think the movie rocked!" or "The character of X was lame." In other words, things that don't relate to the article itself, but make broad statements of opinion. As you surmise, my feeling is that in this case, it isn't a general discussion; in my view, it can impact the article content, particularly in regards to how the character of Vickers is described, but also as to whether the point of the medical pod being calibrated for males was something worth noting in the plot summary.

I've listed this disagreement at WP:THIRD but was going to remove it based on your statements, until Polisher above dropped in below. I'll wait until tomorrow, however, to revert my edit, so as not to push WP:3RR.

I know this discussion could have come across as contentious-- but please understand that even if you don't find value in some discussion, when an editor spends the time to comment, it means they have an expectation that what they've written has some (relative) value, and that their writing isn't just going to be erased without just cause. Regards, ---HidariMigi (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm another editor, I've looked at this, and I agree with IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but you're an editor on the article in question, whose edits have been supported by IllaZilla -- hardly a neutral third party. In other words, you're actually prolonging the disagreement, rather than helping to conclude it. --HidariMigi (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, please. IllaZilla and I actually have a long history of disagreeing with each other on various issues. IllaZilla has in the past actually been quite annoyed with some of the edits I made to Alien, to give but one example. Note how IllaZilla pointed out in his edit summaries at Prometheus that he agreed with me on this one, as if to stress that he doesn't necessarily agree with me about other things. My supporting him here has nothing to do with our agreement on one particular issue at Prometheus. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're not a neutral third-party if you're an editor on the article, or had prior involvement with one of the participants in a dispute. As noted, this is on WP:THIRD now; albeit, at this point, IllaZilla has already stated his disinterest in continuing the discussion-- so prolonging this here is not in anyone's interest. --HidariMigi (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

... coming from 3rd opinion

HidariMigi's comments were pretty offtopic to the talk page of an article where improvement of an article should be discussed. IllaZilla's action was inline.Curb Chain (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Hello, IllaZilla. I could do with your help at the Prometheus talk page. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I was just commenting there, actually. Had trouble getting my word in cuz I kept getting edit-conflicted between you & Blake. I agree that we don't need to describe that scene in the plot summary, but we can certainly discuss it in other sections dealing with the film's concepts. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, I don't object to that. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Alien

If you can please source the character actor bit. Or I shall revert it. The character actor page on wiki is opinion, and poorly written, while Holm is/was a leading man. It is quite misleading to say Holm was a character actor but if it's in the original behind the scenes, I cannot quibble at that and so shall leave well alone!Halbared (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll dig up the quote later (about to leave for work), but I'd appreciate it if you didn't threaten to revert a third time just because you don't like the phrase. The quality of some other Wikipedia article is irrelevant to the issue. Character actor is a phrase appearing in the Oxford English Dictionary. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

OK cool.:) It's not that I don't like the phrase, merely that it is inaccurate in relating to Holm (thus reducing the quality of the article I edited), he is a leading man. Opposite to what a character actor is, whichever poorly framed description one uses.:) However having said that either way, if it has been used against him, then as I already said, one cannot quibble. It wasn't intended as a threat.;)Halbared (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, have you found that quote?Halbared (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh dang, I forgot. Sorry. It's 2am where I am right now & I'm about to go to bed. Will look for it ASAP. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Xenomorph

While I think the use of the term at the end of Prometheus was the product of a discussion on whether or not the creature was related to the creatures from Alien, I wanted to point out that your logic may be faulty - the term did indeed originate in Aliens, and not the comics. Also, I think if we leave the term out of the article, it should revert back to a basic description and possibly an internal link as the consensus seemed to be that they're related. --Williamsburgland (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Being the creator of WP:ALIEN and having worked on all the articles about all the films, I've had this discussion about the word "xenomorph" many times. The word is used once in the films, by the character Gorman in Aliens. It's a term of classification, like a somatotype or like "mammal" or "insect", not a proper noun ("xeno" meaning foreign, "morph" meaning form). The term was subsequently used in comics and video games, and has become common among fans, but has never again been uttered in the films. The films all credit the creatures as "Alien"s in the credits (when listing the actors who played them). We should avoid the word "xenomorph" in the film plot summaries because that word is never used in these films as a name for the creatures. That's why the article about them is titled Alien (creature in Alien franchise) and not Xenomorph. The question of whether the creature at the end of Prometheus is one of these, and whether we should link it, is a separate issue. My objection is solely to use of the word "xenomorph". --IllaZilla (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you took that as some kind of Ad hominem attack on my part; I didn't mean for it to come off as such. I was simply stating that the term did originate with the series; that's not an indication of my desire to include or exclude the term from this or any other article on the subject. Again, all I was saying is that it's inclusion seemed to be the product of a lengthy discussion, and if we don't include it perhaps we should choose another method of describing it, and drawing on the similarities to the titular creature in the films sister franchise. --Williamsburgland (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't take it as an attack, don't worry about that :) I understand where you're coming from. I just want to avoid the term "xenomorph" in the plot summary because it could be confusing to readers (it's not a real word and has no real meaning). In every plot summary about every Alien movie we refer to them as Aliens. If it indeed turns out that we want to describe the Prometheus creature as—and link it to—an Alien, we should use a different phrasing than "xenomorph". That's all I'm saying. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Prometheus

I just wanted to make sure but this source that Kronaang Dunn is using on the article here is not a valid source right? It's a document uploaded to a cloud storage account. And at least when I checked a couple of hours ago before I went to the Avengers, it wasn't being reported on by anything but fan sites. I mean it might be real but I don't see how it can be used as a source like that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I've been deferring to your expertise on Prometheus. I haven't followed the marketing or promotion cycle since I attended the 20th Century Fox panel at Comic-Con last year. I'm a huge Alien fan, so I feel like I don't need to bother following the announcements or marketing because I already plan to see the film opening weekend. I've got the article on my watchlist, but you seem to have the inside track and a lot of good sources so I've been content watching your work on it progress. On a quick glance, I do agree with you about the document: It cites no authorship, so it's hard to determine if it's reliable. It does carry 20th Century Fox legalese at the end, but no...I'd only feel comfortable covering these details if they were reported on by secondary sources with known reliability (ie. the mainstream film news outlets). --IllaZilla (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I try but people are really a pain with the article. I've had people be pains before but with this, jeez. So many drawn out discussions over the same thing. The Alien template is there at the moment, Dunn is fighting over this document and declaring three cast classed as Engineers as important for no reason than they have Engineer in their name, etc. And I let it go because I'm so sick of dealing with them and their bitching over it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments at Prometheus, I swear to god I've never known so much bitching on an article in my life. Either we aren't letting people turn it into a fan article or its too big. Anyway I installed the script from the article size page and it says the readable prose is only 57kb. It won't count the cast for some reason but even with that it isn't going to be over 70kb and that amount is including the lede, so text wise (6000 words), its perfectly fine if the user continues to bitch. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually the prose is only 37kb, so its super low. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure yet but I might be unwatching Prometheus from Wednesday when it is released in France until Friday when I hopefully will get to watch it. I know someone is going to spoil it, there is always that one person who thinks it makes them awesome to do so and I've waited too long to see it to have someone ruin it for me now. Just letting you know if you are going to keep it on your watchlist that I probably won't be proactively defending it for like 2 days. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I usually avoid articles about upcoming films I want to see, for the same reason. I'll keep it on my watchlist to make sure no one screws it up. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well you don't have to, no point in spoiling it for yourself either. Best thing to do, DO NOT EVEN START reading the edit summaries. Will just mean wading through probably a lot of edits to weed out the idiots on Friday. I'm really going to try for Friday because someone will spoil it elsewhere if not here. I knew who the killers in Scream 4 were two days before it was released anywhere. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Freaking cinemas, how hard is it to release films when you say you are going to ><. Kronaang has at least been considerate about it, even if he is being passive aggressive at the same time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Saw it, amazing and intense. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the States, so I'll have to wait til next weekend. Rrrrgh! --IllaZilla (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd stay away from the talk page then, the bottom convo. I thought it was good, lots of people seem to be polarized about it, but they also seem to be idiots who can't comprehend that it isn't an Alien prequel. I personally found myself unable to look away, just wish it had been longer. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

God I can barely be bothered typing out the text necessary to log into the account I have, let alone 20+. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I f**king hate fanboys, sick of spending all my time talking to a brick wall. Pisses me off that I ask him to name one thing that it shares in common with the Aliens beyond having a longer head and he can't do it, but I'm the one obfuscating info. AHHHH! Sorry I needed to vent at someone. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I notice on the Alien article there is a reference to Zeta2Reticuli that is sourced to a book called Beautiful Monsters. I don't suppose you have this book? There is yet another bitchy editor desperate to add a minute piece of info all over the article that they take place in the same star system, which is minor info at best. But from what I remmeber of Alien, the other female crew member says that she found the signal just short of Zeta 2 Reticuli, so I'm curious what this book actually says. Can't find it online anywhere. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I do have the book. You're right, Lambert says something like "we're not at Earth, we're near Zeta 2 Reticuli". Beautiful Monsters says: "Reticulum is a constellation, so it's hard to judge exactly how far out the Nostromo still is, depending on which star Acheron belongs to. Funnily enough, Zeta Reticuli, in that constellation, is the reputed home of the alien 'Greys', according to UFO lore." --IllaZilla (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I read that Greys thing somewhere too. There is an article on here called Zeta 2 Reticuli in fiction and it lists Alien but I WAS able to obtain the book (Encylopedia of science fiction) used as a source, and if I have the right one it doesn't say anything in it that is used in the article, i.e. Acheron or Zeta 2 Reticuli. The way Scott speaks about it he doesn't infer there is any relation either (and he refers to it as a planet, not a star system, galaxy or constellation), and as far as I can tell it isn't mentioned in Prometheus at all. I don't mind adding it to the article but the editor had spammed it in like 4 places to tie it to Alien. Just gathering info, makes it easier to shut the editor up if I'm fully educated on the situation. Thanks for looking up the quote in that book Illa. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

He Illa, I was wondering if you could do me a favor. You'd probably be doing it anyway but I'm just letting you know that I'm basically going on Holiday from July 3-July 13, and if possible could you just keep an eye on the Prometheus article? When I get back I'm hoping to submit it for CE and then GA, but I need to be here to answer q's and such for it so don't want to initiate that now and just want to avoid it getting too hammered while I am away. EDIT: I've also asked Tenebrae who has said he will, so I'm not asking you to be a 24/7 watchdog :P just letting you know that if you see vandalism or stupid edits, I won't be on to fix them.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for vandalism & disruption, but I'm going to be off-Wiki a bit too: Las Vegas this weekend, then Comic-Con July 11–15. I'll do what I can, though. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Anything is enough really, it seems to have calmed down a lot at least. Enjoy Las Vegas, that's on my to do list. 17:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your help maintaining Prometheus and going to the effort of looking up info in a real world book for me. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks dude! You deserve one for your hard work building up and maintaining that article too. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, I know. I know better than to get involved with big articles, that's why I haven't really taken much part in the new Batman film article or Spider-Man, it becomes an endless task of maintaining a certain degree of quality and reliability. But at least it is something I'm interested in, in this case so I enjoy learning about it and sharing that info, and its pretty cool like 3 million people have read that info this month. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise)‎

Would greatly appreciate your input at Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise)‎#Images, if you have a few minutes to express your opinion on the matter. Thanks! GRAPPLE X 02:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Red Alert (album) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Red Alert (album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Alert (album) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

TASM

I just want to say that I appreciate your work. I felt that I should say that because I might could have sounded a little harsh on a edit summary on the TASM article but I am really not meaning to be. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no worries. I just saw some dated language in there, went to fix it, and ended up changing it more than I originally intended. It's not even on my watchlist. :) --IllaZilla (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

John Reis page

Curious as to why you continue to revert the changes to the John Reis page. They are relatively small changes, and your current info is incorrect. See here: http://www.owlandbear.com/2012/03/07/swami-sound-system-finds-a-new-home/ and here: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/mar/07/swami-john-reis-launches-slacker-radio/

Apologies if this (or my attempted changes) are not properly "wiki formatted". Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.163.138 (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't know that. The change from 94.9 to the new service should probably be mentioned, but not merely by replacing 94.9 with the new service. It should be explained when its run on 94.9 ended, and when it was picked up by the new service. Context is important. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion on a discussion

Since you've edited Spider-Man related material in the past, I'd like to invite you to share your opinion on this matter (scroll to the bottom; Bruce Campbell section). You are the only person whose input I've requested, and we have disagreed several times in the past so I do not feel this constitutes forum shopping. That said, I do generally respect your opinion, so I'd like to see what you have to say. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for helping keep an eye on Prometheus (film)! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --IllaZilla (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

St. Jimmy

Look, if you really take issue with St. Jimmy, take it to AfD rather than just redirect it yourself. The song is more notable than 90% of the songs out there since it was a B-side and had its own music video. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. WP:NSONGS is the overriding guideline here. There is no evidence that the song has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to support a stand-alone articles. Most of it is a poorly-referenced "plot summary" of the song, and the album's story is already explained at American Idiot#Story. Whether it was a B-side to some other release is irrelevant, as is the music video which wasn't even associated with the album; it was a video of live clips in support of Bullet in a Bible. "St. Jimmy" was not released as a single, did not chart, and has not received significant source coverage apart from sources discussing the album as a whole. It does not merit a stand-alone article, and has been a redirect for almost 2½ years with little dispute. Calling it notable does not make it so, and un-redirecting it to the same state without improving it by adding secondary sources to establish independent nobility is not constructive. You have to prove that it meets the NSONGS criteria; I do not have to prove that it doesn't. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If you really think that it isn't notable, go for afd instead of unilaterally redirecting. Don't be a WP:DICK. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The dick move is repeatedly un-redirecting it without addressing any of the reasons it was redirected in the first place. If you really think it's notable, find some secondary sources to show notability instead of unilaterally un-redirecting. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

And we are reported here: [1] — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 14:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Great

Great work contributing on Blink-182. Here's a beer for you! --121.217.78.138 (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --IllaZilla (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Big Black

I'm sorry, but I have seen many publications in retrospective considering the band Big Black as post-hardcore. Sure, they are punk rock and post-hardcore (at least in it's early form and descendents of that early form) IS punk rock, but I think it could be better if the band could be specified according to the idea of this musical movement. Plus, it is quite obvious that their music was based upon the principles and sonic qualities of hardcore punk but went beyond such dogmatic limitations, thus, I think the post-hardcore term is quite appropiate for the band. Regards, an ex-wikipedia editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.85.5.96 (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll use references all right. This is not vandalism, stop being rude and respond in a civilized manner towards the message I left earlier about Big Black, you should use references as well for the punk rock validation in the page of the aformentioned band (as well). Regards, the ex-wikipedia editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.85.5.96 (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You are changing infobox genres across multiple articles without citing any sources, engaging in any discussion, or even leaving any edit summaries. Thus the only conclusion I can draw is that you're changing them to suit your own point of view. The warnings I gave you were perfectly valid, and if you continue this pattern you will wind up blocked. The genres in the infobox of the band article are all discussed and sourced in the section Big Black#Music. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

RE: Cocktails & Dreams edit

I removed extraneous information about the record company through which works were released, or at least in the case of Fat Wreck Chords. In any case, the information is available at the linked page and I thought it was unnecessary and cluttering the page anyway. I'd like to hear your view one way or another, though. Cheers. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see POV, I thought I saw a good edit.

Could you explain what was POV about the article. Maybe I don't understand punk rock enough; my expertise is in electronic music, although I like punk rock to some extent. I know there's something I'm missing. Lighthead...KILLS!! 16:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP removed information on the Violent Femmes without giving a reason (the edit summary was a vague "more accurately"), leaving only the mention of the Pogues which was already there anyway. Therefore I assumed they removed mention of the Violent Femmes based on some personal bias or point of view (they don't like them, or don't think they were as important as the Pogues). On further investigation, the source cited at the end of the sentence mentions only the Pogues, so I wouldn't fight it if the mention of the Violent Femmes were removed again. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, it doesn't actually sound that bad the way you left it. On review it seems like it leaves more information. :) Lighthead...KILLS!! 17:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Good Job but...

As the section title says good job but your attitude is arrogant, not only that but then you tried to lecture someone with no attitude, who was trying to help clean up the Alien creature article, about having an attitude. So in conclusion, keep going but leave the cockiness somewhere else. Because we don't need it here. Sean 11:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean199813 (talk • contribs)

Eh? Would you be more specific? Perhaps provide a link or a diff of whatever edit of mine you had an issue with. I haven't made a significant edit to Alien (creature in Alien franchise) since June 22 so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm also not accepting attitude lessons, particularly from someone who's been here 3 months. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Never doubted your edits :) I was making the number change as it was raised at GA nom of Oh Love and I've seen few article with that. Anyhow, gone through your edits and I discovered that you deserve this star! You are doing great and I hope that you'll be there to help. Cheers! TheSpecialUser TSU 14:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! If I could remember where the guideline was that says to use "no." for chart positions, I'd link it. I'm sure it's buried somewhere within WP:ALBUMS. It's so common that there's been a bot going around changing all instances of "#" formatted positions to "no.", for example "#21" → "no. 21". I appreciate your work on the articles as well. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

TSOL

That's not an original research, the reviewer quoted is truly wrong, see the article Property is theft!. As Marx suggested Proudhon this sentence was silly, this quote is everything but a communist speech. Therefore, it isn't true to say that TSOL were unclear about their beliefs : they were openly anarchists Arnoklephoque (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion of the reviewer's comment is irrelevant. Side notes of your own analysis disguised as references are inappropriate. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Siouxsie and the Banshees reviews

Hi,

I just went through the rest of the articles for Siouxsie and the Banshees studio albums and put the Allmusic reviews back into the ones that you didn't revert. I left a message on Carliertwo's talk page asking him to please see this before he removes them again though something tells me it won't do any good. Apparently I'm not the only one who has had a problem with this guy. In any case, I wanted to thank you for reverting his edit to Join Hands. It gave me a little less work to do. Thanks. Shaneymike (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Good work. I'm not a Siouxie fan, I just put Join Hands on my watchlist after having a related dispute with Carliertwo at Control (2007 film). I'll keep an eye on it for a while just to see if Carliertwo does the same thing again. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I also saw that Carliertwo had deleted a warning that Yankees76 posted on his talk page. I left him a message telling him that he cannot necessarily do that as would be interpreted as hostile. I knew this because another editor had to tell me the same thing way back when. If I can grow up, hopefully Carliertwo can as well. Shaneymike (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Allmusic

Hey its me again from Blink-182 discussion, could you put some Input about Allmusic's sidebox genres and Sidbox genres itself here [2] Thanks Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Aliens

Hi. Regarding your removal of the Michael Biehn photo, I've opened a discussion on that article's talk page so that others interested may discuss it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your removal of the photo from The Terminator article, I'm not sure in what way you feel a photo has to "speak to the article text", but the photo is relevant to the Home video section, in which it was placed. It's certainly more relevant than a photo of Schwarzenegger shaking hands with Ronald Reagan in the Release section, simply because that encounter occurred "two months before release". Nightscream (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your statement in your last edit summary about left-aligned images, I read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, and what it says (in this portion of the latter) is that left-aligned images shouldn't be at the top of a section (it doesn't specify the header level), but somewhere after the first paragraph. So you were on the right track. Thanks for letting me know about that. Seven and a half years here, and I'm still learning things. :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: User:BEATWEAKer

Thanks for handling the situation with BEATWEAKer (talk · contribs) so well. I generally don't try to reason with these types of editors (genre warring is a pain to deal with) but I respect those who do. I was the one who put him on the AIV board (so I'm to blame for him being blocked right after you posted on his page) but I was starting to question whether I should have done that considering his edits had shifted in a more reasonable direction. Anyway, hopefully after 72 hours the user will be making constructive edits. So kudos for all the good work you've been doing on music-based articles. Cheers! Friginator (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope BEATWEAKer's behavior changes. I left them that message because, like you, I noticed their edits had shifted in a more reasonable direction (at least providing some sources). Usually I just revert genre warriors outright and leave templated warnings, but on the rare occasion when they show some improvement I try to give them a nudge in the right direction. BEATWEAKer seems to be off on the wrong foot (they've also uploaded copyrighted album covers and promotional photos to Commons, which I've had to nominate for speedy deletion), but in general they seem to mean well and can hopefully be shown the right way to deal with this sort of stuff. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Poll to Remove Ratings info boxes for all the Siouxsie and the Banshees albums

Hi, could you vote in this Talk:Siouxsie_and_the_Banshees#Poll_to_Remove_Ratings_info_boxes.-- Carliertwo (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Refactoring talk pages

this is what is written on wp:Refactoring talk pages

Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. Nevertheless, if the page is larger than the recommended size, then archiving of the talk page, or sections with no recent contributions, without refactoring can still be done.

I object so don't change anything in my edits on Talk:control.

Carliertwo (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Object all you want, your changes make the conversation much more difficult to follow. WP:TALK permits refactoring in such cases. I'm pretty sure we're done at that talk page anyway; not a single person has supported your position, and I plan to keep editing down the plot summary to somewhere in the 550-word range. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Underground: Issue 1 (August/September 2012)

• Letter from the editor: New Format
• Article news: Work done and where you can help

• Project news: Signpost coverage
• Special Report: Wikimania

Delivered by In actu (Guerillero) on behalf of WikiProject Punk. You are receiving this because your user name is listed in Category:WikiProject Punk music members or on our participants list. If you would like to stop these sorts of updates please remove the userbox from your profile, remove the category from your profile, and/or move your name down to the Inactive/former members section of the participants list. Thanks.

Cheers,

benzband (talk) & Guerillero | My Talk 00:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Chixdiggit!

Hi IllaZilla. The RM discussion on the talk page resulted in no consensus to move. It was noted that even on the band's website it was written without the exclamation mark in running text. Also, I just did a search of various newspapers and magazines, and found that in most cases it was written without the punctuation. I think it should probably go through another Requested Move before it is moved. Regards, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess I should've checked the talk page first, but still it seems pretty cut & dry to me. Literally every album cover has it rendered Chixdiggit! (with the exclamation point). I think that renders most other arguments moot. It's unsurprising that most newspapers/magazines don't include the punctuation, as they often ignore punctuation in proper nouns. To me this seems similar to Portugal. The Man, Panic! at the Disco, and other artist articles which we have titled with the punctuation intact. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I don't actually think it's so cut and dry. I've reverted, and added a note at Talk:Chixdiggit, as other editors might also want to weigh in. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Predator (film)

We had a couple of edit conflicts. I'm headed off line for a couple of hours to run errands. If you have time you can do the edits and I'll take a look this evening.

I'll mainly be looking at that one scene where Dutch sends Anna off to see if it's clear Dutch has figured out the part about unarmed people. FWIW, the thermal imaging never highlighted weapons and Anna seemed to be as much as a "blob" as the armed humans. As it is, I thought it was silly that they showed them as blobs. Had it been real the creature likely saw detail as well as or better than humans. It certainly could spot nearly invisible tripwires. That roving creature we have on Mars at present has broad spectrum imaging that can resolve grains of talcum powder. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 18:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

???

Can you explain me unexplained changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BEATWEAKer (talk • contribs) 00:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see this edit which contained an explanation of the changes (it was auto-reverted by Cluebot for some reason, so your edit summary was further down in the history & I simply didn't see it). I'm going to make a good faith restoration of your edits until I can review the changes more thoroughly. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Princess Mononoke#GA push?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Princess Mononoke#GA push?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

i put up, now you shut up.

Dude,

Check out the Lincoln bust behind Lawrence Harvey.

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm977372160/tt0056218

Dude, http://www.filmsite.org/manc2.html

Senator Iselin is reflected off the glass covering a portrait of Lincoln - juxtaposing the ghostly-thin, anti-Communist with a stalwart American from another era, as he fixes himself a drink. As a spineless puppet, Senator Iselin complains to his wife that he can't keep the number of Communists straight in the Defense Department: "I mean, the way you keep changing the figures on me all the time. It makes me look like some kind of a nut, like an idiot." She holds up a newspaper and proclaims:

Raymond's vicious, overly-smothering mother - sitting next to a bust of Lincoln and in front of a fireplace portrait of Lincoln - sabotages his relationship and potential marriage plans with the daughter of one of his step-father's political foes - she labels Jocie "a Communist tart." She interprets his romance as dangerous to her own plans, and maternally 'brainwashes' him to give her up:

http://www.filmsite.org/manc3.html

The celebration opens with images of American patriotism gone mad - there is a closeup of an American flag - a hand reaches out and defaces the flag with a trowel-like shovel. It scoops up the caviar from the star pattern onto a cracker to be devoured. The hand belongs to Johnny Iselin, who is dressed with a tall stove-pipe hat and fake beard as Abe Lincoln. He excuses his desecration: "It's all right, it's Polish caviar." Mrs. Shaw, who appears as Little Bo Peep (or Mother Goose?), reaches out with her long staff and pulls his arm - an apt metaphor for her controlling nature. Raymond, who is costumed as a Spanish gaucho, is extremely nervous about meeting his long-lost girlfriend.

The scene in the study between Raymond and his mother begins with a close-up of a black bust of patriotic father figure Abraham Lincoln - one of many such witty image compositions and motifs in the film (visually linking Iselin to Honest Abe). Raymond's mother divulges that she is his American controller - an agent for the Reds: "Why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?" When he comes upon the Queen of Diamonds, she is unexpectedly called away and takes the card as a precaution. Jocelyn, however, finds Raymond in the study and is reunited with him - she is coincidentally (and improbably!) dressed as the Queen of Diamonds - the most appealing costume possible for him! After embracing, they depart to elope, and leave behind her card costume.

IS THAT ENOUGH FOR YOU DOUBTING DUDE???

johncheverly (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Dude, I really don't care. I've never seen the film and I'm not a Lincoln buff like you seem to be. I'm simply trying to get you on the right track with regard to finding sources to back up your claims. Even with the sources above, this doesn't seem like content appropriate for an article about Lincoln. Appropriate for the article about the film, sure, but not to an article about Lincoln. It's an analysis of the film, not of Lincoln or even of a portrayal of him. And again, stop shouting and ditch the confrontational attitude. With a topic header like this, I'm inclined just to delete the whole thing and ignore you altogether. You really need to improve your communication skills. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If you don't really care, then you need to shut your big mouth in the first place. And you need to grow a spine and use your real name, otherwise you're just another punk. johncheverly (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Now you're just being an ass. I'm going to report you. You can either demonstrate civility and a willingness to collaborate with others, or be swiftly shown the door. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Johncheverly

Users, including blocked users, may blank all or part of their talk page. Only block and unblock discussions must remain. You must not edit war with Johncheverly on his talk page. You've made your feelings regarding Johncheverly's behaviour clear, and you would be very well advised to disengage from further discussions with him. Continuing to post on his page is unhelpful and is causing rather than solving an antagonistic situation. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That is fine, and good advice. I had spent quite a while composing that long reply of mine, and I see his blanket removal of the entire discussion, including his entire back-and-forth with the blocking admin, as a show of bad faith. The guy has really got my goat with his continued insults and personal attacks directed at me (his every reply and edit summary seems to contain a fresh batch of name-calling). But I will let it be. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in Johncheverly's behaviour, before or after his block, suggests to me that he is at all amenable to reason. It is very possible that Johncheverly is simply trying to troll us, and there's nothing a troll likes more than to make a reasonable person angry. I don't think any amount of post-hoc talk-page prunery is going to fool anyone that he's interested in being a productive contributor. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your outstanding help with combating TheMetallican's sockpuppetry and vandalism. Friginator (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

72.186.48.128

You warned this IP repeatedly about his or her edits. I just blocked the IP for 2 weeks. I suggest you keep an eye out for new IPs from the Tampa, Florida area doing the same stuff; if so, report them to me or another administrator, being sure to include a link to this IP's talk page (that way you won't have to jump through hoops first giving multiple warnings, etc).

Thanks for watching over our content. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. It was hard to tell what was going on with that IP: some of their edits looked good/legit, others were unexplained genre changes, while still others introduced flat-out factual errors. Since they never left a single edit summary or responded to talk page inquiries/warnings, it's hard to tell what their intentions were. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I encounter editors like that and wonder the same thing. My approach is to give them a warning to stick to talk pages, then block them if they don't. If it's a real vandal, they just can't resist hitting articles. Of course, it can also be a seriously obsessed non-vandal, too, but at that point the block is about disruptive editing, not vandalism. From here on out, I feel that if that person ventures off talk pages in the future, they're fair game for a block at any time with no warning. They know the score, now.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

An undo?

I do not understand why you undid my edit to User:Realist2/Genre Warrior. My edit was legitimate and "undo", as a form of revert, seem inappropriate. Regardless, the information you put in the edit summary which addresses my concerns belongs in the essay. It is a bad thing to have a hard-to-verify claim in an essay. If specific wikilinks are difficult to provide, a footnote with the information you wrote would have been a good alternative and more appropriate than just undo'ing my edit. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you read my edit summary? You said you couldn't find where it had been discussed, so I pointed you to it. I thought I'd addressed your concern. I guess I just didn't think to footnote it. If you want to do that, by all means go ahead. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Since I mention your edit summary above, yes, I did read your summary. The comment in my edit summary was just to note that finding those discussions is not easy. Sorry if my summary caused confusion. I would have used the talk page if I just wanted to know where the discussions were. I will add a footnote. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

BRD project

Hi, I have outlined a proposal for a potential project that you might be interested in at User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer. The essence of it is a peer review system in relation to challenged unilateral edits. If you are not interested then no worries, I'm just seeing if there is any interest/suggestions at this satge before going to the bother of formalizing a proprosal. Betty Logan (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"User:TheMetallican" and sockpuppets

Hello, you were involved in a (now archived) sockpuppetry case involving the above user. While I never had any direct dealings with the above user, a sockpuppet of the above user added an intrusive edit to the Bay Area thrash metal page [3] and shortly thereafer, an autoconfirm, (User:FunnyPatrol99), is persistently trying to sustain the same edit [4], [5]. This is really just an FYI, based on your post on 2601:A:4100:5A:EC7A:ECA5:15F6:C925's talk page. I let an admin know, and am pondering whether to open a new SP case. Thanks, --Danteferno (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I say start the SPI. Funnypatrol's edits are definitely of the same flavor as TheMetallican's, and in the same types of articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Heck, I'll start it. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

They were quacking far too much so I blocked them --Guerillero | My Talk 01:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Udon for you!

For keeping safe and reverting vandalism on pop punk band pages. --101.161.42.150 (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't think I've ever had udon before. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

help request

Hello, I noticed you left a message on a users page for acting in a way that could be considered edit warring. the same user has been causing trouble on the following page - http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Bio_Booster_Armor_Guyver&curid=2060496&action=history you seem to know what you're doing on here so I was hoping you could help with this situation. The user is adding blatantly false information. it's something that is not present in the series and has never been referenced. the user seems to be basing his addition on something he has misheard from watching the anime series. the article isn't even about the anime series. I would appreciate your assistance in this, doing things the proper wikipedia way. I can only think of restoring the article to a state that doesn't contain false information. I've asked him to stop, I don't know what else to do. I don't want to end up in an edit war with somebody like this that seems to be just trolling. thanks! Drag-5 (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Which user are you referring to? Are they registered, or anonymous IP addresses? I can't really tell from the article history who the problem editor is. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Help

Hey, can you help me with something? I uploaded this image to Wikipedia: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Stikky_cemetary_San_Jose_1987.jpg I contacted the photographer and he gave me permission to use it on Wikipedia, so I was wondering what the proper licensing would be. I tried to find the proper license tag, but Wikipedia just put it on speedy deletion. Thanks in advance. BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Nevermind, I got it. BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Because you deserve it ;) Redalert2fan (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --IllaZilla (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

FAC comment

Hi. Would you like to comment at the FAC page for The Way I See It (album)? Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey

I got your message but you cant threaten to report me because i made the page for supervideos so it was fair to add. And by the way you cant just blank a complete page without discussion this can lead to being blocked if you want to make a redirect please use the talk page. The superhits page is basically a double page for both so i see no reason that there cant be two pages they are different releases and deserve a seperate page. They both have a tracklist, definition, members and a infobox and a cover. This was the requirement that everyone said was needed to make both Dos and Tre into pages and that is what we did. So since this has all of the requirements it can be its own page. And again like i said if you are going to Delete a page you must request a delete and use the talk page or risk being banned BlackDragon 02:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Superhits article was redirected over a year ago because it is not notable in and of itself outside the context of Superhits. The two were released at the same time, as part of the same marketing move, and are best discussed together. Supervideos does not have enough secondary source coverage to be independently notable. An item does not "get" its own page simply because you can make a tracklist and infobox. See WP:NALBUMS and WP:N for notability requirements. Supervideos was merged into Superhits for good reason, and you should not split it again just because you think it "gets its own article". If you think it's notable enough to stand alone, you need to prove it by demonstrating significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The only reason you want it to be separate is so you can link it in the navbox. It is best covered with Superhits, just like Blink-182's CD and DVD releases of the same nature. I did not delete the page, it was redirected, and that does not require a deletion discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No i dont just want to add it to the stupid Navigation box i think it should be added anyways since it redirects to its own section on the page but that was the requirement to make the other pages so it should be enough to make this its own page and again blanking a page without discussion can result in a ban. Even if you think you are right you should war and can get be banned from editing by doing so this is you final warning BlackDragon 03:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the expression "the pot calling the kettle black"? I advise you not to make threats when your own behavior is equally egregious, if not moreso. Again, the DVD does not "get its own page" simply because you think it should. We have general notability criteria and specific criteria for albums. The most important of both being the requirement of significant secondary source coverage. Supervideos and Superhits are companion releases and should be discussed together, in the same article. You have provided no argument to the contrary other than "it has a tracklisting, infobox, and credits", which is unconvincing. If you think it merits a stand-alone article, you need to discuss it on a relevant talk page and provide sources to back up your assertion. Until then the article will remain redirected as it has been for over a year. Consider this your final warning: Any more edit-warring on your part and I will report you straight away. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

K you know what I dont care about its own article I just thought it could so I made it. its fine having it on the same page it doesnt bother me.

But what did was it seems like you stalk my edits and revert everything I do. Such As

1. you deleting the page right when I made it even though its sourced over other non sourced articles that I had nothing to do with
2. you commented on the admins page right after I did
3. you reverted some edits right after I made them such as
4. when I thought i was adding categories to the Tokyo... talk page i removed the rating part since it didnt have one yet and was accidently on BBBPP and hit save instead of preview and i saw that it was the wrong page and was in the middle of changing it back when you reverted it immediately before I could fix it
5. Right after I added the stuff back to the template you removed it

So you might not but it really seems like it and thats what made me mad. so you can kinda see why I was but Its fine about having them together but The Tokyo page really should be left since it has at least 3 very reliable sources and if the others arent thats fine but like I said the other 3 have none and have been left untouched for 7 or 8 years since they were made in 2004 and 2005 so thats why it should stay. BlackDragon 20:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not "stalk your edits and revert everything you do". That's a gross exaggeration: You have edited 245 different pages, I have reverted you on 3. To my knowledge we have not interacted or crossed edits on any other articles. Many of the Green Day-related pages are on my watchlist, including a number of redirects. So when you edited them, it showed up on my watchlist. I then edited as I felt appropriate. If it seems I'm reverting or editing after you rather swiftly, it's probably because I check my watchlist often. When I notice mistakes, like you accidentally removing the assessment ratings from Wikiproject banners and improperly linking a template, I fix them. If you perceive this as a slight simply because I fixed it swiftly, I can only say that you are mistaken.

When you started threatening me with a ban (which is laughable) I took the liberty of checking your contributions and saw that you had run off to JamesBWatson in an (equally laughable) attempt to have me blocked. I have the right to respond to such accusations, and did so. I note JamesBWatson's response says, in part: "IllaZilla has given cogent reasons, based on Wikipedia's guidelines and expressed courteously, to justify his edits. Meanwhile, Black60dragon's reasons amount to little more than 'I think it should be this way', and sometimes his/her messages have been somewhat aggressive in tone."

I have addressed the problems with the Tune In, Tokyo... article and its sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tune In, Tokyo... and am not going to rehash them here. You keep bringing up other deficient articles, but that does nothing to address the irreparable problem that this topic (Tune In, Tokyo...) has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I once again remind you that the mere existence of other, similar articles is not a valid argument and that inclusion is not an indicator of notability. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Like I said it just really looks like that and I was talking about when I do stuff to green day related things. It just seems that way I never said you did. And i reported you and added the warnings because you blanked the page after I warned you not to. And the other thing was it seems that you just requested the page I made for deletion because I made it. The others I had nothing to do with were fine though. And you couldnt of had this name in your watch list because the page was previously called Tune In Tokyo when i made Tune In, Tokyo... it had never been created before.

It may not be valid at the deletion page but im bringing it up here. To you are they any better than the one I made which at least has a sourced Track, Label, Release and Members and the others have to none. Dont say its unrelated because its not but to you how are these more reliable than my page I made BlackDragon 00:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please dont edit my page If you wanted them removed you should of told me on my talk page your edit has been reverted. And I will replace them later BlackDragon 23:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:NFCC is policy. I do not require nor desire your permission to enforce it. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. If I had not removed the images, a bot would eventually have done it automatically, without asking permission. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

So you dont want my permission. It may be, but I just copied the pages without remember the pictures. And I would have let the bot, my problem is that you seem to check every page I contribute to and change it back. If it was anyone but You it would be fine. Next time let the bot do it and dont edit my page. BlackDragon 03:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Still don't care. Pages in your userspace are not yours per se; they are part of Wikipedia, and belong to the wider community. Other users are explicitly allowed to edit your userspace to enforce policy, and I will not refrain from doing so just because you don't like me. Again you're greatly exaggerating about me reverting all of your edits: I have only reverted you on 3 articles, out of the hundreds you've edited and the thousands I have. Reality check, please. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"And you couldnt of had this name in your watch list because the page was previously called Tune In Tokyo when i made Tune In, Tokyo... it had never been created before." Not true. Tune In, Tokyo... was created by Ericfernando rock (talk · contribs) in October 2009. It was immediately put up for speedy deletion by Merlion444 (talk · contribs) and then redirected by Bearcat (talk · contribs). The title has existed as a redirect for 3 years. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Big Black links

Hello,

Regarding the external links for Big Black, I can understand the removal of the "official page" link, given that it's still their record label and the only "official" source for Big Black. You are right in that the live guide was made by me. I did think about the coi but for exemple the Nirvana page has a link (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Nirvana_%28band%29#External_links) for a live guide structured the same way as mine and I assumed the information was valid enough to outweigh the coi. It's been researched and compiled with help from people close to the band etc... so it's a serious project. I would like to hear your input on the validity of the guide as it's not something that can easily be incorporated into the wiki page for the band.

Thank you for your time, Tokvev (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

A troll?

B767-500, he seems like one. Have you dealt with vandalism before? I could use some example here.

Anyway, this part: "The Prometheus lands near a series of large artificial structures, the first of which the team explores" is not B767-500's contribution. It's JohnSawyer's, I've convinced him and reverted or reword most of his edits, but I kept that part there because it's not entirely useless. We could use some mention that there's more than one structure to imply that there's more than one spacecraft. Otherwise, the second craft might appear a Deus Ex Machina. Anthonydraco (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment.

I'd appreciate some feedback on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheMetallican, if that's alright. Looks like the guy has made a few more accounts. Friginator (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Again? Yeesh, that guy doesn't get the hint, does he? --IllaZilla (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Get a Life

C,mon man the page was already being discussed at the talk and it wasnt considered a delete either so its fine to keep. Can you not sleep at night unless this page is gone??? seriously its annoying. I try to make this place better and you keep trying to get it removed. Get over it it wasnt deleted so move on man. BlackDragon 03:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The article was previously deleted in 2009. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tune in, Tokyo... Because of the difference in capitalization of "In" in the titles, the old AfD did not come up when I nominated Tune In, Tokyo... for deletion. Had it come up, the new article could have been deleted under WP:GCSD no. 4 since the new version is substantially identical to the old and does not address the reasons it was deleted. The more recent AfD closed as no consensus, which does not override a previous consensus to delete. You are not "making this place better" by creating articles on non-notable topics that have not received significant secondary source coverage, particularly ones that have previously been deleted for precisely that reason. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thats was an entirely different page, it didnt contain the same info this one does, so its irrelevant. Why do you want this deleted so bad. its not like there arent other worse sourced album pages by punk rock artist or even in general. You just seem to really hate the Tune In page so much. Does it bring up bad memories. Because after it closed you reopened another one twice and then complained on everyones page that closed it and had another discussion elsewhere even though there was already a discussion on the page. So whats your problem with this page, Why do you hate this one article so much because like I said they are plenty of stub and non sourced album pages by plenty of different major bands, but you chose this one to get rid of and then tried to get the ones that I used as examples deleted. BlackDragon 01:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you know what it was like? It was substantially the same as the current version: little more than an infobox and tracklist. There was no evidence whatsoever of significant secondary source coverage then, and there isn't now. Significant coverage has not magically appeared from the ether in the last 3 years. As for the rest, yet again I refer you to WP:OTHERCRAP. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

themetallican

Its me I want to discuss my problem with how I am sockin and stuff and what caused it. But I couldn't get your attention to discuss it on my talk page so I used this. You can delete this message. But I want to talk about it. --2600:1003:B024:1D00:6454:55BC:92D6:B6E (talk) (User:TheMetallican) 16:46, 22, October 2012 (UTC)

It is very simple: don't create sockpuppets. When you are blocked, it means you are not allowed to edit. Creating new accounts to bypass a block is a direct violation of policy. You have already been instructions at User talk:TheMetallican#Blocked as to how to appeal your block. That is your only avenue through which to discuss having your editing privileges restored. Though with the amount of sockpuppetry you've done over the last few months, I wouldn't hold your breath. You'll have to demonstrate an understanding of why you were blocked and make it clear that you won't repeat the same behavior in the future. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Another obvious sock [6]. It's pretty easy to find him as the same 30 articles suddenly pop up in my watchlist. His edits last all of about 30 seconds so I'm not sure why this game continues. Ridernyc (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Halestorm page

Disregard this message. I misread the page history. Sorry for wasting your time. Have a nice day! NECRAT^{Plates On} 03:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Predator

Thanks for the recent edit on Predator. I added in Latin America, someone else had added that explanation. However I think it is still inappropriate to call it Latin America. I left something on the talk page on the Predator (film) article and would appreciate if you could add in your thoughts there.--JTBX (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Predator move

I explained the reason for the move in the edit summary, "This is a fictional alien species, not real aliens". [7] You reverted it without even bothering to provide a reason why the older title was better.[8] Since you did not address my rationale, nor did you provide a reason why the older title is better, I'm restoring the better title. If you object, maybe this time you can come up with a reason? Blind-reverting is bad form. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not "blind revert", I stated a reason in my edit summary: This is a high-traffic article that links to numerous other articles. The title was the result of past discussion and consensus, and a move should not be undertaken without discussion. If you unilaterally move it again, I will move it right back. Moving major articles without any discussion is bad form. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, your edit summary was "undiscussed move of major article. start a move request on talk page." Nowhere did you provide an actual reason why the old title was better. Your objection seems to over process, not substance. So, can you tell me why you prefer the old title? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not lying. I said it's a high-traffic article and you should have discussed a move first, which you didn't. Don't get me started on "process wonkery for the sake of process wonkery"...I'm currently forced to engage in exactly that type of lameness over on another page. The title Predator (alien) was the result of a move request which represents consensus, so a move to a different title requires a new consensus. I did not think the new title was an improvement, simply more lengthy. That said, this is a difficult article to name and there may be several possible titles that could be better. Naming Alien (creature in Alien franchise) was a hell of a thing. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Your edit summary was "undiscussed move of major article. start a move request on talk page."[9] Instead of blind reverting, you should have provided a reason why the older title was better. Knee-jerk revisions without explanations is rude, IMHO. If I take the time to improve an article, and you disagree, you should at least show some common courtesy and explain why you prefer the older title.
• Apparently, you're unfamiliar with, or you've forgotten about WP:BOLD. Not every change needs to go through lengthy discussions.
• Thank you for finally providing a reason, although "more lengthy" isn't too compelling. The current title is inaccurate. Predator isn't a real alien species. It's a fictional alien species. I'm just trying to clarify that, that's all. It's a rather small change.
• I took a look at that discussion. That was 4 years ago, only a handful of editors participated. Also, my change is consistent with that discussion in that it's just a minor tweak to clarify that this is a fictional alien, not a real one.
• But since you insist on process wonkering for the sake of process wonkery, I started a discussion on the article talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

DRV NAC

That was a good close you just reverted. If non-admins shouldn't close DRVs, then just as equally, non-admins shouldn't revert DRV closes. I think you should have left it alone, and raised a question at WT:DRV instead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to an admin making the same close, but closing DRVs is a task specifically entrusted to admins. I'm pretty sure anyone is allowed to revert an action they feel is "against the rules". --IllaZilla (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

AVA

I saw your recent change on the Angels & Airwaves article. I know there is no source about new song but it does exist. It was exclusive for the "gold members" fan. Like listed before you reverted it came in a USB format. It is likely this won't have a source. As it was a fan pack release. Just like how hidden tracks don't usually have sources. And just as you can expect it someone always puts it on YouTube, here. (It's all instrumental until about 5:30 in) — ıʇɐʞǝɐdʌɐиƭɐqǝoɟʎouɹqoɐʇ [talk] 22:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Blink-182 years

Hi, so why are the years next to the members in small font again? I remember that you were making them into standard font everytime someone made them small... — ıʇɐʞǝɐdʌɐиƭɐqǝoɟʎouɹqoɐʇ ✯talk✯ 01:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was User:TheSickBehemoth who put in the small font. See his edit. I just swapped out the html code for the {{small}} template. I don't recall "making them into standard font everytime someone made them small", though it's possible I just don't remember doing so. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

My bad. And well, I didn't literately mean every single time, but yes I see you do edit / protect (keep away vandalism) the Blink-182 article regularly. But should the fonts stay in small or standard? Does Wiki policy / standards specify this is any way? — ıʇɐʞǝɐdʌɐиƭɐqǝoɟʎouɹqoɐʇ ✯talk✯ 12:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no standard or MoS guideline I know of that says anything about the small fonts one way or the other. I've looked at a bunch of articles in Category:FA-Class biography (musicians) articles and some use small font, others don't. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BADCHARTS

Please do not add the United World chart (as you did here) or any other chart listed at WP:BADCHARTS to any Wikipedia articles.—Kww(talk) 04:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken: I did not add that chart. I merely reverted a new user, User:TaketheCrownorBreaktheSpell, who removed content from the article without explanation. I suggest you check the history to see who originally added it and issue this notice to them. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have warned that user (fairly sternly, because he has been warned before). You are also responsible for material that you add by reverting other users, so you got a polite request to not do that again.—Kww(talk) 15:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

blink-182 EP

Sorry I thought the itunes EP and the new EP were different things, I see you combined the edits, but still sceptical that they're separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.235.102 (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. No way to know, really, whether the two EPs are the same thing until they actually materialize. I just prefer to work new information into the existing text so that things flow, rather than allowing a bunch of news bytes to start lining up at the bottom of the band history. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did you rv the name inclusion man? Look on their website they just opened the pre-orders for it and released the release date ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.235.102 (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It was improperly formatted, man, and we do not cite social networking sites. If a third-party source reports on it, which they surely will, then we can report on it. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It was from the official site. There are three packages: Santa's Lap, Nice, and Naughty. The site is temporarily down right now I think. I just freaking bought the pre order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.235.102 (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That's nice. This is an encyclopedia, not Blink182news.com. We're not here to report everything the band posts to their social networks, we're here to cover the history of the band as reflected in reliable secondary sources.--IllaZilla (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok I apologize for the incivility man, I know you are just trying to make everything absolute and not be frivolous with citations, but just to be clear modlife.com is not a social networking site, it is the official site for many bands. I really don't know why it is not working at this moment but my best guess is Tom DeLonge put it up too early without the word from the other band members, or some other legal reason. When the pre-orders for the new EP first came up, blink182.com redirected to modlife.com/blink182, which is Tom's site that lets fan connect directly to different bands (he also uses it for Angels and Airwaves). Anyway, I'd like to put this monkey business behind you and I, not trying to make a vendetta. 76.169.235.102 (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. I think we both went overboard reverting each other so many times. My concern was not having a working source. If the band has announced the release details for the EP (title, release date, tracklist) them I'm sure some reliable secondary sources will report on it. We can cite those sources when this happens. Since Wikipedia isn't the news and has no deadline, we can afford to wait for the secondary source coverage. There's no need for Wikipedia to be "first on the scene" with this type of stuff. Anyway, yes I agree let's put it behind us and bury the hatchet. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

And this is why verifiability is important. Because after all that, the EP's title is not what you kept insisting it was. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I realize that now, I again apologize, learned from the mistake 76.169.235.102 (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Fifth Element

The poster issue has evolved into a vote at Talk:The Fifth Element, if you'd care to weigh in. أنا أحبك (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

prometheus and dodgy science

I have recouched the questions( which I previously posted without giving a long rationale) concerning criticism of the dodgy science in Prometheus. Per the WP policy section you referenced when removing the first entry "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles" Please inform me if you are unhappy or unclear with this policy and are considering removing the section again.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 21:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The original post was simply a complaint about the film's plot and as such was inappropriate for Wikipedia. The revised discussion is germane to Wikipedia's treatment of the topic and is thus acceptable. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

post rebuttal editing by you of your contributions in a debate

It is an odd thing to edit posts of yours after others have replied to them as you have done on the talk page of the movie Prometheus -it interferes with the flow of the debate, attempts to undermine replies, and has the appearance of your not having confidence in what you originally said. Calling another editor a liar is not civil and against policy. Please refrain from such acts in future. Rearranging the edits and editing the entries of others is not really on either.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 19:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Excue me? Please cite, specifically, where I have called anyone a liar, "undermined replies", etc. All I did was reformat the replies the way bulleted, !vote-style discussions are supposed to be formatted. You don't seem to know how to properly reply in these types of discussions. It follows the same format as an Afd: The bulleted comments are people's !votes, and if you wish to reply to that !vote you do so by indenting immediately below it, not by creating new bulleted !votes at the bottom of the thread. I will continue to fix the format unless you learn to do it properly yourself. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Re "Calling another editor a liar": That wasn't me, it was Darkwarriorblake. Please check your facts before you go around accusing people of improper behavior. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, nowhere have I edited my own comments post-rebuttal. Please show, using diffs, where you think I've done so. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

New Regime, Los Cycos

l actually page linked the wrong band it's New Regime (band) for the punk group and yes a New Regime new wave band did come after but that's obviously not the band I was referencing here. As far as Los Cycos, there is clearly a reference to the book written by Deena Weinstien in 2000 that clearly mentions Los Cycos as well. They were on a complete crossover album and very popular back in the day as well as an influence to many. I'll undue your reverse and site the proper page link. I think it best to not just assume something is not properly referenced as you did initially claiming that you doubt that either was included in the reference. Why dont you actually read! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkinfo (talk • contribs) 19:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't take that tone. The article on Los Cycos indicates that they were a side project lasting less than a year and that they only ever recorded 1 song. Thus they don't appear to be worth mentioning as one of the major bands of the movement. The claim that they "were very popular back in the day as well as an influence to many" is pure opinion not backed up by any reliable sources. As for New Regime, the link you added at the time went to an article about a Canadian new wave band, not a southern California hardcore band, which is why I reverted. I doubt that a mention in the pages of a punk fanzine counts as establishing significant notability to warrant a mention in an article about the overall history of punk rock. A mention in an article specifically about southern California hardcore, sure, but not in an article about punk rock in general. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well actually that particular paragraph is dealing with Southern California punk and New regime is obviously is a notable act or they wouldn't have a Wiki page. As far as Los Cycos is concerned I guess they were worth mentioning in the book so why not in this article? Punkinfo (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the punk rock article is about the genre of punk rock as a whole. It is meant to give an overview of the entire genre of punk rock and its history, not to name-drop every minor band and side project from every local scene. The section on hardcore is a summary style section, providing an overview of the most significant artists and aspects of that subgenre but, again, not name-dropping or delving into every minor act. The main article for hardcore is hardcore punk, which contains subsections on specific regional scenes. That is the place to delve into more detail, including smaller acts that are less relevant to the overall history of the entire genre of punk rock. However, if all there is to mention is that the act existed, as opposed to what they did and why they were significant to the movement, then the more appropriate place to mention them may be at List of hardcore punk bands. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

you're right and I apologize if I sounded a bit cross, I was a little frustrated and hate not being right! Lol thank you! Punkinfo (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Happy editing! It looks like you're working on some good stuff there in your userspace (Sin 34, Tiny Bubz, etc.) --IllaZilla (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually the Sin 34 article is almost finished and thanks for the photo!!!!! I'm having a hard time getting the Tiny Bubz aka Anthony"Tiny"Biuso article accepted. Any and all help or input would be appreciated as in helping to add reliable references or citing the CD's for me. Any input on Sin 34 would be welcome as well. thanks!!!!! Punkinfo (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know anything about Sin 34; seeing them at that show was the first time I'd ever heard of them. And I don't know anything about Tiny except that he played on the last few T.S.O.L. albums. I'm trying to find out more about him: when he joined the band, who he'd played with before, whether there are any quotes from him about it, etc. Your article may give me some leads on that. I can give you some cites for the liner notes in question, but all they give is his credit:

• Who's Screwin' Who? (Media notes). Los Angeles: Anarchy Music. 2005. {{cite AV media notes}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |artist= ignored (|others= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |publisherid= ignored (help)
  • code for this ref is {{cite album-notes |title=Who's Screwin' Who? |artist=T.S.O.L. |year=2005 |format=CD insert |publisher=Anarchy Music |publisherid=ARY 8029-2 |location=[[Los Angeles]]}}
• Live from Long Beach (Media notes). Bristol: Cider City Records. 2007. {{cite AV media notes}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |artist= ignored (|others= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |publisherid= ignored (help)
  • code for this ref is {{cite album-notes |title=Live from Long Beach |artist=T.S.O.L. |year=2007 |format=CD insert |publisher=Cider City Records |publisherid=CIDEREYE08 |location=[[Bristol]]}}

There aren't any liner notes for Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Free Downloads, since it was only released digitally and as a picture disc. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank You!!!!!! Punkinfo (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you changed his name back to the misspelling that occurred in the liner notes, I'm actually very good friends with him and if you google his name it's Anthony Biuso and he was also in the Band Hed (PE) and his name is in their articles as well. Spelled properly. Its easy to Verify, take care Punkinfo (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Well that's good to know. I was totally confused trying to get the right spelling from the T.S.O.L. albums. Who's Screwin' Who? / F#*ck you Tough Guy: The Collection gives it as "Anthony Biusu aka Tiny", while Live from Long Beach gives it as "Anthony Buiso". I've got the picture disc of Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Free Downloads and it doesn't even have credits listed (it doesn't even have a record sleeve, much less any liner notes). I had no idea he'd been in other bands. Man, I hate it when stuff like this is hard to track down. Thanks for the help. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

yes he was also in the Dickies for a while his name is Anthony "Tiny Bubz" Biuso we would call him Tiny for short. Punkinfo (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Me First and the Gimme Gimmes

Category:Me First and the Gimme Gimmes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Christgau template

Hi. Since you've edited this template, could you respond to this question of mine? Would it be possible to make this change? Dan56 (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

punk rock started in the 60's

Dear Illa Zilla,

You have to forgive me for being new at this. I am brand new to the task of editing on Wikipedia (you can tell). I made several edits, that you recinded. I think that we went back and forth a few times. No hard feelings. Like you, I am a big fan of punk rock. For instance, I love classic punk bands, such as The Clash, from the mid to late 70's.

So understandably, I have always been interested in how punk evolved and its earliest roots. Like you, I have spent most of my life with the persective that punk started in the mid-to-late 70's, and that previous influences were mainly prototypical, although I have to admit that I have always found certain songs by Iggy & the Stooges to be very punk way before thier time. I also had heard about how garage rock from the 60's had infuenced punk, but I tended to regard it as proto-punk, not actual punk.

But, a few things have changed my mind on this. The first thing was when I bought the Nuggets compilation. I was surprised to read the liner notes written by Lenny Kaye (later with the Patti Smith Group) referring to what we now call garage rock of the mid 60's as "punk rock"--this was back in 1972. And he seems to use the term as if it is common knowledge amongst hip people. Then, I later found out that Dave Marsh had referred to Question Mark and the Mysterions as "punk rock," a whole year before that in Creem Magazine (May 1971). And, I have also read that Lester Bangs wrote about it in Creem during this time, identfying punk as a mid-60's phenomenon (obviously seeing it from an early 70's perspective).

Needless to say, I really enjoyed the Nuggets collection, so I began trying to find other more obsure collections (Pebbles, Back From the Grave, Teenage Shutdown, etc.) and I can now say that I am positively in love with this music!! It does not necessarily always sound like what we now think punk should, but it doesn't necessarily need to (because Dave Marsh, Lester, Bangs, and Lenny Kaye were talking about the whole garage "punk" music in all of its stylistic dimensions, not just thrashy sounding songs). You hear a lot of blues, R&B, surf, rockabily,British invasion, and psychedlic inluences mixed in with the rougher harder diamond edges. It is 60's music, after all. But, in various degrees, there is a certain kind of punk swagger runs through it all, which gives it an edgier feel than the better known music of the time.

But, what is really surprising is that there are a bunch of crazy songs that sound punk as hell!!! Check out "1523 Blair," by The Outcasts (released Jan. 1967, recorded 1966), "I'm Movin' On" and "From a Curbstone" by Evil (1966), "We're Pretty Quick," by the Chob (1967), "Voices Green and Purple," by the Bees 91966)(check out the artwork on the record cover!!!). And there are many, many other songs in this vein.

Now,let me say this with several caviots: If I had not known that the garage era music of the mid 60's had been referred to as "punk," in the early 70's, I would have regarded it a precurser to actual punk, with perhaps certain songs that might register as punk (or at least almost). And, I also acknowledge that the 60's garoge rockers had not claimed the word "punk" for themselves. If the word punk had been used in the 60's, it would most likely have been used in a disparraging way by an older person. And, I also acknowlege that it wasn't until the mid to late 70's that bands started calling temselves "punk," and adopting a look, philosophy, and ideology that was completely seperate from other forms of rock.

In the 60's it wasn't really necessary to do that, because the youth had their collective back up against the wall and had to stand united against the older establishment; any divisions in the ranks would have weakend their efforts rather than strengthened them. There would have no use in creating a distinction between "punk" and "hippie" at that time. All of the rock of that era, whether you call it "mod," "British invasion," "punk," "garage," "psycedelic," "acid," "hippe" whatever was tied up in a nexus. To appreciate just how true this is, watch the Standells performing in a club during the opening credit sequence of the movie, "Riot on Sunset Strip" to understand what I am talking about. They are punky as hell!!! ...and yet somehow there is the hippy thing at the same time. But, the more you excavate through the 60's, the more you find punk. The term was not self-referentially used at that time, but the reality of its exixtence was already very much there. And all it needed do would be to find people to point it out and codify it (Marsh, Bangs, Kaye, et. al. in 1971-1972). By the way check out the Sylvania TV ad from 1966 on Youtube (with that wild rock & roller). What do you find?

So let's talk about "punk" as it relates to the 60's: Is it necessary for musicians and people in a certain cultural milieu to have to self-define thier own genre or label and create a whole seperate look and philosophy to be considered a part of that label or deignation? I say not. Did the first heavy metal performers (such as Blue Cheer, early Led Zeppelin) call themselves "heavy metal?" No. In fact many of them denied the label after it later became fashionably applied to them. Their look and aesthetic style was not much differnt from other bands of the late 60's (check out Robert Plant's or Ian Gillin's tie-dye shirts in '69--same thing that Crosby, Stills, and Nash would have been wearing). They were just singing to their generation. Does that mean that they weren't "heavy metal?" Of course not. The term was coined to apply to them. Of course, later on, heavy metal would evolve into having a whole seperate look and identity from other forms of rock, but that was a few years away. By the way, didn't the Ramones deny the label punk for a while circa '78? Does that make them not punk?

Did the mid 60's garage rockers have to call themselves "punk" and look completely different form everyone else at that time to be punk? I say no. Because, the term "punk rock" as it was first used applied to them. Did The Creation ever have the slightest clue in 1966 that people would one day be refering to them as "freakbeat?" Certainly not. Does that mean that they weren't freakbeat? Of course not.

I'll be the first person to agree with you that when the term "punk rock" was first used to describe the garage rockers of the 1960's, it was used to designate a sub-genre within a larger genre (much as was the case with "freakbeat"). It did not necessarily denote a whole seperate movement. Does that make it not punk? No. There is no way of getting around it: the garage rock of the mid-60's was the original form of punk rock and was the first style to be designated as such within the rock critical community. That is not a matter of opinion, but fact (I posted the references to the articles on Wiki, but you removed them).

I am in no way disparaging the later more identifyable punk rock post-1975. It was my love of that music that brought me to want to discover where it came from. And, it is my love for great bands such as The Clash, who proudly proclamed themselves a "garage band" on thier first album (even though the bands of the sixties did not use that term), that led me to this. And I have heard Joe Strummer say in a documentary that he considered the garage bands of the 1960's to be the original punk. I wish that some of the other great 70's punk icons could have been as generous.

There can be no denying the genius of the bands of the 70's punk movement, particularly the British bands. They created a whole new look and philosophy to go with thier brilliantly updated punk sound at a time when rock really needed it badly. They truly shook the world. And, they took something that had started almost accidently years before and brought it out into the light of day for the whole world to see. The punk movement of the 70's should have been the ultimate vindication for the long neglected and forgotten 60's punk rock bands. But, instead the 60's groups have been relageted to proto-purgatory ever since. And, that is just not right.

DIY: The 60's punk bands didn't say much about it--they went out and did it--like no one ever before or since. They had the gumption to go out and form bands by the hundreds of thousands--playing live and recording (often on numerous independent labels--sounds familiar?). There is no way of counting, but I have read that in 1966 there could have been at least 300,000 garage bands active in the United States alone--a phenominon that touched practically every niegborhood in the country. There is nothing even comparible in any other rock era in terms of size or scope. The amount do-it-youself grassroots rock bands at the time was staggering. In terms of size, 1966 was the greatest explosion for punk rock ever(or any kind or rock--when people mention 1977 and 1992 as the years that punk broke, I laugh). If you don't believe me go look at the factory orders for Ludwig drums and Fender guitars and amps. The factories had to go through massive expansions and run quadruple 24-hour shifts night and day. Fender today is the largest guitar company in the world, but the factory they have now is a fraction of the size as the one they had to build then to keep up with the demand. But, the garage rock craze was a stealth revelution. Nobody know what to make of it at the time. No one knew what to call it. It is almost as if these bands did unconsciously what later gerations would have to do consciously. They are invisible forgotten punk revelutionairis (the real Genration X). Due to the overabundance of competion, there was just no way for most of these bands to ever hit it big individually speaking (the later punk bands got rich in comparison and stole all of ther credit). The guitar and drum manufacturers were the only ones who made much money out of the whole garage rock explosion.

All-Female Bands: If the guys in all of those bands' sense of feminist awareness wasn't as high as in the punk of more recent years (is it ever as high as it should be?), then here is the perfect antiodote: go to the Girl Garage Mayhem blog on Myspace and read the list of approximately 160 all-female groups operating at the time. This is ten years before The Runaways or The Slits. The Pleasure Seekers were really terrific.

So, isn't it time 60's punk got its due. Garagepunk66 (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

tl;dr -- As I said in my edit summary, you need to bring this up at Talk:Punk rock. Since problems have been identified with your edits, you need to build consensus for them. Also, we have an article for the '60s stuff: garage rock. I have read dozens of books about punk rock (it was the topic of my masters thesis) and the '60s garage stuff is, of course, widely considered a forerunner of '70s punk rock, and many of the original '70s punks cited '60s acts as their influences (mainly the New York punks, ie. the Ramones cited many '60s garage rock acts as inspirations, and the Nuggets compilation is mentioned by many in the NYC scene as influential). But "punk rock" as a term describing a musical style/scene did not enter the vernacular until the mid-'70s (a handful of obscure prior usages notwithstanding), and is is this music that innumerable sources are describing when they write about "punk rock". Numerous secondary sources describe and support this. That's why the punk rock article has a section for "Garage rock and mod" describing the influence of these precursor acts, and an "Etymology" section describing earlier uses of the term, including those you mention above. We go into more detail at the garage rock article, and we use summary style to provide a brief description within the punk rock article. But again, we really shouldn't be having this discussion here. It needs to be had at Talk:Punk rock so other editors will see it and become involved. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear IllaZilla,

I realize that there is a secion about Garage and Mod, but it is incomplete very awkwardly written and contains factual errors (or at least needs better clarification). For instance, when it says that mod was in decline in 1966, that is simply not true. The street-style motor scooter-riding "tickets" that had inhabited London a year or two earlier (immortalized by The Who in Quadrophenia) may have diminished, but mod as a broader fashion style in clothing and dress and hip culture was reaching at its pinnicle and was becomming a world phenominon in 1966. Check out Antonioni's famous film, Blow Up, to see the mod culture in full gear in swinging London (1966).

Mod was becomming the new fashion and style craze here in America in 1966. Check out the May 13 article in Life magazine that year. It features models on the front cover posing for a picture in Chicago, mimicking the pose and attire of an earlier picture taken of the garage (punk) band the Del Vetts. Did the article mention the Del Vetts? No. But aren't used to 60's punk bands being ignored? Still. mod was the rage.

No matter where you were in 1966, if you were in a rock band and wanted the "in" look, it was mod. The hip look in garage rock (as in all rock) was mod in 1966.

The section about Garage and Mod, says barely anything about garage rock in America. This is particlarly distressing in light of the fact that garage rock would have such a great influence on what we would later call punk. It deserves a better discussion in punk rock history than it usually recieves. That is why so many of the books that you have read barely even mention it. But, if you took the time to learn more about garage rock and listen to a lot of the bands, especially the lesser known, harder-core sounding ones, you might come to realize that garage rock does not get enough discussion in the history of punk. The role of garage rock in the history of is in need of re-evaluation.

So, when I edited the piece, I added a few things, and corrected some errors. I seperated the writing into several different paragrpahs, so that it would be easier for people to read. But, I kept the vast majority of what had been there before. I worked within a framework of respect for the ideas of former contributers, even it I thought the style could have been improved. If you compare my revisions to what was there before, you will notice a lot of improvements.

I wish that you would show me the same courtesy by modifying, editing, or improving my contributions rather than eliminating them. I think that just as my pieces improved on what there had been there before, you could help me by making mine better. By eliminating them altogether, things take a step back, rather than a step foward, and we end up with lower quality writing than what we deserve.

Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you that there are problems with the quality of the writing. Punk rock is a featured article, meaning it has been reviewed multiple times by highly-experienced members of the Wikipedia community and determined to meet the featured article criteria, including being comprehensive, well-researched, and well-written. Having done a great deal of reading and research-based writing on the topic myself, I agree that it meets these criteria. Again, I think much of what you are talking about is already covered in the "Garage rock and mod" and "Etymology" sections of the article and within the Garage rock article. Your statement that:

It deserves a better discussion in punk rock history than it usually recieves. That is why so many of the books that you have read barely even mention it. But, if you took the time to learn more about garage rock and listen to a lot of the bands, especially the lesser known, harder-core sounding ones, you might come to realize that garage rock does not get enough discussion in the history of punk. The role of garage rock in the history of is in need of re-evaluation.

...is an example of undue weight. If the vast majority of sources discussing punk rock treat the '60s garage rock acts as a precursor and do not give it much more prominence than that (which is the case, in my experience), then so should Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to "re-evaluate the role of garage rock in the history of punk". We cover it as an aspect of punk rock, but in proportion to the prominence it is given in the majority of sources dedicated to the topic of punk rock. If your desire is to rewrite the early history of punk, that is a noble goal, but not one that should be carried out on Wikipedia. Again, you should take this up at Talk:Punk rock, not here. Since punk rock is a featured article, many editors keep it on their watchlist and will respond to topics brought up on the article's talk page. In having the discussion here, we are limiting it to just you and me. Establishing consensus for such a large change to a featured article requires the input of additional editors, and should take place on the article's talk page, not a user talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helpping me learnthe ways of Wiki

Dear IllaZilla, I appreciate you helping me learn the protcals of editing on Wiki. I am glad that you did not take any offense to some of my earlier revisions/reversions. I will try to create consensus on the talk pages, but I know, even there I will drive a lot of people nuts. So, I'm going to do better with that, too. I have an idea that you might find interesting:

Perhaps you could work on an advanced study project, alone , or with others, either with some of the other seasoned editors, or in outside academia, focusing on the early history (or what most will consider the prehistory) of punk rock, specifically the garage rock period (1963-1967). It is the period that that has recieved the least attention of practically all rock genres, yet is the one with perhps the most amount of recorded music. I consider this period to be the Rosetta Stone of rock--a national treasure--a huge, vast ocean waiting to be fully dicovered and properly appreciated. There is so much here to enquire about: so much great music, so many oral histories of former band members, etc., but many of these people are now dying off, and there is an urgency to learn as much as we can about this subject.

When I look at the history of punk rock, I see a continuum: 1) First pre-history of punk: the prehistory of rock & roll (pre 1955: certain delta blues: i.e. faster songs by Robert Johnson, Chicago blues, jump blues, early R&B, etc.). 2) Second pre-history of punk: early rock & roll (1955-1957: Chuck Berry, Bo Diddly, Jerry Lee Lewis, Buddy Holly, rockabilly, particularly the harder rumbling school. 3) Third pre-history of punk(1958-1962: Link Wray, regional rock & roll). 4) First punk era (1963-1967, or perhaps into 1968). This era can be divided into two halves: a) pre-British invsion (1963-first half of 1964: Northwest hard r&b driven rock, frat rock, surf, particularly hard instrumental school, i.e. Dick Dale, etc.) and post (later half of 1964-1967: mod garage bands, starting with The Barbarians, the Rockin' Ramrods,Los Saicos from Peru, and all of ther rest). Some "garage is punk" advocates consider the pre-British ivasion period to be protopunk and the mod period to be actual punk. However, from, what I've read about him, I believe that in his writings for Creem in the early 70's, Lester Bangs, considered punk to start with the Kingmen "Louie, Louie." Supposedly it was Lester Bangs who came up with the most elaborate original definitions of the punk timeline. I would tend to favor whatever position he took, because it was he who originally defined the whole period, but I have not had access to his writings on the topic. I would like to read them. Perhaps you would know how to acess them (I would love to know). Then all of the later periods.

One point that all "garage is punk" advocates agree on is that the post-British Invasion garage rock is true punk, I am not alone in this. I can assure you that practially every serious fan and collecor of garage rock considers (at least 1965-1967) to be pure punk rock, and that is the assumption of practiclly every CD and LP compilation. It is taken as an article of faith--as a gospel truth in these circles, that garage rock is the origianl form of punk rock. The particularly resplendent year we covet is 1966 (in terms of size, scope, and musical innovation: one of the watershed years of punk--the summit of the first and golden age of punk).

Great collections Nuggets Box Set, Pebbles series, Back From the Grave series, Teenage shudown series, Garagebeat '66 series. Here is a short list of songs to consider (check out Youtube):

1) "It's a Cryin Shame," The Gentlemen (Vanden, 1966); also: rehearsl verison (1966) 2) "Destination Lonely," the Huns (1966) 3) "We're Pretty Quick," The Chob (1967) 4) "1523 Blair," The Outcasts (rec. 1966, re. 1967) 5) "Project Blue," The Banshees (Dunwich, 1966) 6) "I'm Movin' On," Evil (1966) 7) "From a Curbstone," Evil (1966) 8) "She's Been Travelin' Round the World," The Seeds of Time (1966) 9) "And She Said Yes," The Painted Ship (1966) 10)"The World Ain't Round, It's Square," The Savages (1966) 11) "Look in Your Mirror," The Merlynn Tree (1966) 12)"The Courtship of Rapunzel," The Bruthers (1966) 13) "Circuit Breaker," the Pastels (1965) 14)"Voices Green and Purple," the Bees (1966) 15)"I'm a Nothing," by The Magic Plants (1966) 16)"On Tour," by The Chancellors (1966) 17)"It's Gonna Take Awile," The Morticans 18)The Merlynn tree: "Look in Your Mirror" (1966) 19) "I Don't Want to Try it Again" and I'm Gone Slide," by the Dagenites (1965) 20) "Saturday's Son," by The Sons of Adam. 21) "Never thought You'd Leave Me" and Waht a Way to Die," by the Pleasure Seekers (1966) 21) "Cry a Little Longer, by The Grodes (1966) 22) "Voices Green and Purple, by the Bees (1966) 23) "She Lied" by The Rockin Ramrods 91964) 24)"Watch: Sylvania TV Commercial Rock 1966 ...(and many, many more)

Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Etymology" (in Wiki "Punk Rock" article)

The "Etymology" section of the Wiki "Punk Rock" article is vague, omits key information, and does not make it clear enough that garage rock (1963-1967) was the first genre of music to be spoken of as "punk rock." It also omits the fact that Lenny Kaye (future member of Patti Smith Group) referred to it, as a whole genre, as "punk rock" in his original liner notes to the Nuggets compilation LP (Electra, 1972) (L. Kaye, "Headed, Decked, and Stroked..." original liner notes for Nuggets. (Electra, 1972)) The Wiki "Etymology" section speaks as if the word "punk rock," was used arbitrarily by critics in the early 70's. This is false and innacurate. The critics knew exactly what they were referring to: garage rock of the mid-60's.

In the early 70's certain inluential rock critics retroactively used the term "punk rock" to describe the mid-60's garage bands as a sub-genre, whether individually or collecively, making it the first time the word was used as such to refer to a style of rock.)D. Marsh, Review for Question Mark & the Mysterions. Creem Magazine. May, 1971) ([L. Kaye, liner notes to Nuggets LP compilation. Electra Records. 1972)

To quote Lenny Kaye's liner notes to the original 1972 "Nuggets" LP compitaion:

"...In addition, most of these groups (and by and large, this was an era dominated by groups) were young, decidedly unprofessional, seemingly more at home practicing for a teen dance than going out on a national tour. The name that has been unofficially coined for them--"punk rock"--seems particularly fitting in this case." (L. Kaye, "Headed, Decked, and Stroked..." original liner notes for Nuggets. (Electra, 1972)) Lenny Kaye took the colloquial, unofficial term that was floating around and, in the act of writing about it, officially codified it in the larger public mind in his notes on a major record relase by a major record label with widespread distribution (Electra).

No doubt the previous Wiki editors have read the website, "Etymology of Punk (and the Developent of How the Term Came to be Used in Rock) (www.johnsavage.com/punk-etymology). But they have made a bad misreading of its contents. It quotes and cites numerous articles from 1969-the late 70's. From 1971-1975, "Punk Rock," is used time and time again to refer to the garage rock of the mid-60's. The word "garage band," is also used, but not nearly as often as "punk." The critics do allow the extension of the term "punk rock" to apply to contemporary artists of that era (1971-1975), as well. You will see references to various contemporry artists of the time that the critics percived as "punk rock" at the time. Some references may surprise you (Bob Seger, Grand Funk Railroad, Springsteen, etc.). Some may not (Iggy and the Stooges, early Alice Kooper). But, one thing is certain: the barometer for whether or not they considered a contemporary group artist "punk" was the degree to which that group or artist was percieved to embody the spirit of the mid-60's garage bands.

The current "Etymology" secion of the "Punk Rock article in Wiki, badly misreads the intent of rock critics of the early to mid 70's and makes it seem as if the term "punk rock" was used arbitrarily by these critics, but it was not. There may have some been confusion about what constituted "punk" in terms of contemporary artists of the time, but here is absolutely no confusion about how it realted to the garage rock bands of the mid-60's, which were considered the foundation of the definition.

In the article, "The Shakin' Street Punk Survey," by Metal Mike Saunders (that appeared in the "Shakin Street Gazette" Nov.7, 1974) Sauners speaks of the mid-70's punk movement in New York as a punk "revival" (not as a new thing called punk): "...the punk music revival is now in full swing.". (M. Saunders, "Shakin' Street Punk Survey," Shakin Steet Gazette. November, 1974) He also talks about the influence of the Nuggets compilation LP on their New York contemporaries." (M. Saunders, "Shakin' Street Punk Survey," Shakin Steet Gazette. November, 1974)

Over a year and a half earlier, Greg Shaw, in his Rolling Stone review of Nuggets had said:

"Punk Rock at its best is the closest we came in the 60's to the original rockabilly spirit of Rock 'n Roll, ie Punk Rock The Arrogant Underbelly of Sixties Pop..." (Rolling Stone, Jan. 4, 1973) (G. Shaw. Rolling Stone, Jan. 4, 1973)

A few years later, Shaw in review for a live show by the Sex Pistols at the 100 club (Record, June 1976), describes them as "punk rock," but in the context of how they fit into his previous definition of the term, not as a new definition (keep in mind that, at that time, they often did covers of old mid-60's songs, such as "Stepping Stone," by Paul Revere and the Raiders and "Substitute," by The Who). It is not until the Sex Pistols got really big and become a cause celebre all over England (post-Grundy show appearance) that the term "punk" shifted away from its previous definition to designating a new phenominon.

But, the article that goes into the most detail about the early definition for mid 60's garage as "punk," is "White Punks on Coke," by Mick Houghton (Let it Rock, Dec. 1975) He talks extensively about the "resurrection," of punk currently going on (i.e. what we would assume to be the New York Scene--CBGB's, etc.). At great length, he litanizes the various "punk" bands of the 60's: ? & The Mysterions, The Castaways, The Count Five, The Shadows of The Knight, The Barbarians, The Seeds, The Blues magoos, etc. Read it. To Houghton:

"But that challenge [to the British Invasion] was taken up by a plethora of amorphous garage bands which sprang up in the suburbs of American cities. It is among these groups that punk rock began. (Let It Rock, Dec. 1975)(M. Houghton. Let It Rock. Dec. 1975)

Over and over, the rock critics are absolutely clear that they consider the garage rock to be the original (and touchstone) form of punk rock. However, the Wiki "Etymology" section of the "Punk Rock" article does not sufficiently reflect this. It only makes occasional references to these critics and makes their statements appear to be equivical. It does mention that Ed Sanders used the term, "punk rock," to describe the Fugs (in a 1970 article). But, Sanders remarks does not attempt to define a whole genre of music. It is likely that he is using the term "punk rock" in context of how it was probably being used colloquially at the time: to describe garage bands of the mid-60's and how the term could also be used to denote contemporaries who considered themselves to be following in the eccentric spirit of the garage bands. In all likleyhood, Sanders is using the term in exactly the same context as critics, such as Dave Marsh, Lenny Kaye, Greg Shaw, Mike Saunders, and Mick Houghton.

After careful reading of what was said, time and time again, by influential rock critics 1971-1975, there can be absolutely no doubt that garage rock is the first genre of music to be referred to as "punk rock." The "Etymolgy" section of the Wiki "Punk Rock" article must be ammended to reflect this reality. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. You have already made your points at Talk:Punk rock, multiple times, and at great length. I am not interested in pursuing this on my user talk page. The place to discuss this, and to build consensus, is at the article talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Quote form Nick Kent, writer and early member of Sex Pistols

Here is a quote from a book that you would consider to be authorotative: Punk: The Whole Story, edited by Mark Blake. The book (as is so often the unfortunate case) says little about garage rock. But, in the first selection, well-known rock journalist and early member of the Sex Pistols and later London S.S. Nick Kent, says something you might find very interesting:

"For me, punk didn't sart in 1976: it started in 1971 when I first read US rock magazine Creem. The writer Dave Marsh claims he coined the phrase "punk rock" in a review he wrote for the magazine late '71 of a gig by ? & The Mysterions. But it was fellow Creem scribe Lester Bangs who really took the term and and created a whole aesthetic for it. For Bangs and his disciples, punk rock began in 1963 when Seattle quartet The Kingmen hit Number 1 stateside with the deliciously moronic Louie, Louie, grew with the influx of one hit wonders from the US mid-60's that Creem correspondent, Lenny Kaye paid fullsome tribute to with his influential 1972 album Nuggets... Now you have it: an early member of the Sex Pistols expressing, not only the influence of garage rock on his band (early on they played songs such as "Steppin' Stone), but also from where they derived the term "punk rock," quoted in an authorotative text. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned before, I am not interested in discussing this here on my talk page. The discussion is already at Talk:Punk rock where you have made it rambling and verbose to the point of exhaustion. Attempting to raise the same issue over and over again in different places does more harm than good, and the more you repeat essentially the same arguments over and over at greater and greater length the less inclined anyone else is to pay attention. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, you do have a point about my threads being long-winded. So, I went in and cut down the size of my wording in the posts and consolodated the tree posts into one (in the punk talk section), as to alleviate some of the repetition. I retained all of the comments that other people made and kept all of the things I had said that they were responing to. I wish that I could have cut down the size of my words even more, but oh well...I now rest my case! I have no intention of belaboring these points any further in these posts--I want to shift my focus onto improving the list of garage bands and creating articles for a lot these bands (which is my real joy). I do apologize for any aggrivation I might have caused. I am sure that you can appreciate how deeply and strongly I feel about this. But, I do perfectly respect your right to disagree. I hope that I have enriched people's perspective and provided food for thought. I will take up your advice and write that book. Then, after you read my book, you can proudly brag to metal-heads that punk came first!!! Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

temp

Hey since Billie's old side band is listed in the associated acts you should add Mike and Tre's old bands too. BlackDragon 03:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I just put in the groups listed in the infobox of the Green Day article. If you want to add other associated acts, I won't object. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok but "Dont want to know if you are lonely" was re released as a split single with green day and husker du. Green Days recording was from "Warning". But it was an official release as a single. Thats why its been added and shouldnt be released

A cookie for you!

Because there wasn't a "constantly repairing formatting" barnstar Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Haha, thanks! It may be a sign of OCD, or just nitpickiness :) --IllaZilla (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that at T2, the IPs looked similar and i assumed I was undoing all 3 edits.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem :) --IllaZilla (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

He's baaaaaaack!

Yeah. But in all seriousness, I'd like your input on the latest batch of possible "Metallican" sockpuppets. If I'm right, he's been pretty busy lately. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

http://picardfacepalm.com/picard-facepalm-hotlink.jpg --IllaZilla (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Template:Green Day. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ironholds (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Tracklist for Dogs Eating Dogs

You can thank reddit for this, but some linked to a German iTunes that has the Dogs Eating Dogs ep up there:

https://itunes.apple.com/de/album/dogs-eating-dogs-ep/id586491886

Hope you don't mind me posting this here. MySummerJob (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, but better to wait for a third-party source, preferably one in English. The EP comes out in a week; I'm sure all the usual music publications will publish the details in short order. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, we can leave it as is then MySummerJob (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Have another look

Hello IllaZilla. Please review your reversion of my edit, and ensure that you are restoring content that you believe improves the article. Aspects of your reversion have me a bit perplexed at the moment. I think you may have erred. [10] Thanks, --My76Strat (talk)  02:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It was not in error. For a long time the lead sentence has read "‎Blink-182 is an American rock band...". At 00:07 yesterday the IP 177.81.38.172 changed this to "pop punk". At 00:39 another IP, 121.217.58.153, changed it back to "rock" with the offending edit summary "IT'S ROCK YOU SCUMBAG". You then rightly reverted 121.217.58.153's edit due to the combative summary. I simply reverted one edit further, to the original version before either IP came along, since the original edit by 177.81.38.172 was an unexplained genre change. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for offering that clarification. I was inadvertently focusing on the infobox, erroneously believing that the change affected it. I am curious; do you believe there is a conflict between the lead statement and the indicated genre in the infobox? Thank you again. --My76Strat (talk)  11:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a conflict. Pop punk is a subgenre of punk rock, which in turn is a genre of rock music. So calling them a rock band is perfectly accurate, though it may not be as specific as some of the band's fans would like. If one reads the lead section a bit further, one can find more detail on their subgenres: "The eponymously-titled Blink-182 followed in 2003 and marked a stylistic shift for the group, infusing experimental elements into their usual pop punk formula, resulting in a more mature sound." And the "Musical style and influences" section of the article gets into even more detail. Most of our fly-by readers & anon editors rarely read our articles past the lead section and infobox, having the attention span of gnats, and thus they often want to get very esoteric about genres as early in the text as possible, but this is poor writing. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a very reasonable explanation. I can not find an inkling of disagreement. It is fitting that the lead presents the summary in broad terminology, while the content is expanded in the article's body, as it should be. So it was I that was wrong, but I'm no longer perplexed; a reasonable trade by my measure. Best regards, --My76Strat (talk)  20:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent reversion on Template:The Gaslight Anthem

Hi. While i understand (and agree with, to a degree) your point, i deliberately added the singles without articles because i saw another example of a navigation template with non-article singles listed (Template:Bruce Springsteen). Should they be removed from that one too? Just asking, i'm curious about the inconsistency, that's all. Julianhall (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they should be removed from that one too. Navigation templates are for linking, not listing. See WP:NAVBOX. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll update that one too. Julianhall (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Your reversions of my edits

Several things worth noting. (1) Other editors in the discussions have noted that it is their understanding that it was already policy not to list top critics. No one has said otherwise. (2) Other editors began removing top critics scores from many pages before I did, so I have not taken anything "upon myself" or tried to "enforce [my] chosen 'rules'". (3) It is standard practice for Wikipedia editors to make changes to pages that they believe improve those pages, which is what I have done. The fact that it is many edits rather than just one does not negate that these edits are all standard editing procedure. Perhaps if you assumed good faith and read the discussions before making accusations it would be more productive. 99.192.81.168 (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: The complaint about vandalism you referenced on WT:FILM, you might note, was withdrawn and the complainer admitted that he did not think my edits were vandalism. Also, it was the same editor who posted the 3RR warning, when he admits that I did not violate 3RR (I made 2 reversions - the same number he made). Those "warnings" were both not legitimate, and acknowledged as such. 99.192.81.168 (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. I have read the discussion at WT:FILMS. I have also read where others have already cautioned you against making mass changes to film articles, and taking it upon yourself to change the project's guidelines, based on a discussion that is less than 2 days old and involves only a handful of editors. It is not "standard practice" for editors with an obvious bias to assume consensus has been reached in their favor and then take it upon themselves to enforce it as they see fit. I am not the first to warn you of this, and if you continue to behave in this way I will report you to the administrator's noticeboard. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

And my point in referencing the AIV discussion was not that your edits were vandalism; it was, as my sentence indicated, that you had been spoken to about this behavior on multiple occasions. I linked the discussion in order to verify that you had been spoken to as well as that you were aware of it, since you had made replies in both linked places. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

FAC

Hi Illazilla, I'm having an issue because I have Prometheus and Batman: Arkham City up for FAC, apparently you can only have one up at a time unless you have a conominator. I was wondering if you'd be willing to co-nominate Prometheus, it seems like pageantry to me tbh, but I either need you to do that or Grapple to co-nom Arkham City, or they'll delist Arkham City. If you can't that's fine, let me know and I'll get back to Grapple. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll co-non Prometheus. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch Illa, link is here. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

hello

you wrote me a message ,where you said, I started a edit war, which not is correct, I started the discussion on "talk" but nobody answered me as it seems that my answers do that they were left without words, Talk:Prometheus (film)#Nationality Never i start an edit war, I started to just "talk" MervinVillarreal (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You did start a discussion, but you have simultaneously edit-warred on the article: Here is your initial edit, followed by your first revert, your second revert, and your third revert. This is edit warring, and places you at the threshold of violating the three revert rule. Your third revert was after others had challenged your assertions on the article talk page, so you knew your changes were in dispute. Starting a discussion on the talk page does not give you license to edit-war on the article in order to enforce your preferred version. When your edits are challenged, you must discuss them in order to form consensus on the matter. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As for your assertion that "nobody answered" you, I believe I have responded to you three times now, each of which you seem not to have taken on board. GRAPPLE X 00:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

np, I will continue doing the consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MervinVillarreal (talk • contribs) 08:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Have a merry christmas Illa, thanks for your tireless efforts Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Les Misérables (2012 film)#Cast billing

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Les Misérables (2012 film)#Cast billing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Propagandhi

As I say in the edit summary, we have been over this subject before at the List of Black Flag band members. I know that you don't like the timelines, but others clearly think that they add a lot to band articles. Nearly every GA on a music group contains one either in the article or on an attached article, as I have previously proven. This is a commonly used method that many editors and users find helpful. You don't have to like them, but please stop deleting them. CCS81 (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have never seen any evidence that "others clearly think that they add a lot to band articles", since I have never seen a centralized discussion about these "timelines" or their usage. They are not required or even recommended by any guideline or manual of style, and they serve no purpose other than to add bright colors to articles. As far as I can tell, the only reason they exist in so many articles is a small handful of editors went on a crusade to add them to every article. This is not an indication that they are a required or even recommended component of articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No, they are not required, they are optional and are helpful in some cases. As for an argument that they should be included, I cite their frequent appearance in WP:GA/MU and their consistent appearance elsewhere. You have given no reason for their removal, other than your "handful of editors ... on a crusade" claim which will definitely need some hard evidence lest it sound simply paranoid. If you don't like the timelines, fine, you don't have to make them. If you can generate a discussion yielding clear consensus for the removal of a specific one in a given article, fine. You have not done this with the Propagandhi article. CCS81 (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know how many GAs and FAs had these timelines in them at the time they were promoted, and how many were added later. Your repetition that they are present in a lot of GAs doesn't mean much unless we know whether they were a component of the articles considered when the articles were reviewed. I say "handful of editors" because I have seen you and a few others go around adding these things to numerous articles that didn't have them before. You yourself have added them to quite a few. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I will let you count the number of GAs and FAs that include them yourself. While you're at it, see how many use extended prose exposition (a la the finished parts of the List of Black Flag band members) and lineup-by-lineup charts, which seem to be your preferred methods of presenting the information. We can compare the totals. CCS81 (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Prometheus Image

Hey Illazilla, a commenter at the FAC review for Prometheus mentioned croping the image of the Prometheus ship. Personally I think the image doesn't serve much purpose as a ship is a ship essentially. If I can have two fine, but if I can only have one, I'd rather have an image of a creature since they're more up to imagination. I remember you suggesting the Trilobite, was wondering if you could help me decide which of these would be best:

• http://www.popcultcha.com.au/prometheus-engineer-trilobite-2pack-p-11052.html to the right of the page, its a toy, but shows an Engineer and a Trilobite, but I guess it depends on clarity and I also suppose I could get such an image from the film itself.
• http://www.prometheus2-movie.com/media_display_img.php?id=467 good but the text would need cropping and obviously it doesnt show the full creature by cutting off the legs
• http://www.prometheus2-movie.com/news.php?id=240 the best one for clarity

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the ones in the third link, but I say get a screenshot from the film itself if you can. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be the clearest image I can get of it showing the tentacles and its "face", unless you can think of a different scene I don't think it appears anywhere else in its grown form. Also maybe this or this, but the last one there isn't any real critical commentary about its face in the article so I don't know.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg		Have an enjoyable New Year!
		Hello IllaZilla: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you, and a happy 2013 to you as well! --IllaZilla (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Underground: Issue 2 (January 2013)

• Special Report: Sign up for the Wikicup
• Article news: Work done and where you can help

• Project news: New templates and "rescued" articles

Delivered by In actu (Guerillero) on behalf of WikiProject Punk. You are receiving this because your user name is listed in Category:WikiProject Punk music members or on our participants list. If you would like to stop these sorts of updates please remove the userbox from your profile, remove the category from your profile, and/or move your name down to the Inactive/former members section of the participants list. Thanks.

Cheers,

benzband (talk) & Guerillero | My Talk 22:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Richard Manitoba / Caribou

Hi Ill, Glad to see you are going strong. I'm recruiting foe extra comments on a content dispute at Richard Manitoba. Apparently there was some flare up over use of the name Manitoba some years back, and the aggrieved party has been repeatedly and persistently inserting snarky copy into the Handsome Dick article. Since he has also done press interviews, he has refs. If you could assist on consensus, much appreciated. Wwwhatsup (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Descendents discography

I see you removed Original Me because it was on a live album, but I think a studio version that isn't on any other album should still be in that section. Regarding the dates, at the time I didn't realize the whole page had both a year and a release date. Still, it seems redundant, especially when the majority of the dates are just years anyway, and it's not like there's multiple things released in the same year that would benefit from having the release date listed on that page, as the release date will obviously be on the album page. -Joltman (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no studio version of "Original Me" by the Descendents. There's a studio version by All (on Breaking Things), but both the Descendents and All tracks on Punk-O-Rama 2001, Vol. 6 are live recordings, both from Live Plus One. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you're right, sorry, I'm an idiot :P I've even listened to the version on Punk-O-Rama 6 and for some reason thought it was studio. My bad! -Joltman (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting my rollback. I didn't notice it. It's really easy to do on the IPad even when you are on the watchlist for a second.Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:The Bronx (band)

Category:The Bronx (band), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)