User talk:IllaZilla/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, IllaZilla/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  DS 17:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Headings and quote marks

Hi, I noticed you've been fixing a lot of album articles. Thought you should know that standard Wikipedia style is to use lower case for words in headings apart from the first word, and proper nouns etc., also be aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums which has a number of useful standards to work to. Keep up the good work, Regards, Rich Farmbrough 20:10 4 August 2006 (GMT).

You deserve this...

I hereby award this barnstar for such great in the field of hardcore punk! Cheers! Bubba hotep 22:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Keep it up. And to think it only came to my attention because you edited one of my first articles, no matter how small the edit was! Cheers Bubba hotep 22:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Vandals Sadr City.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vandals Sadr City.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 21:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dunno if you saw, but I changed my mind about this. Sorry for the false alarm.—Chowbok ☠ 03:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up the Vandals page. I hope you like the facts I was able to supply about Escalante. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fretlisa (talk • contribs) 20:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Escalante

Thanks for your dedication to Wikipedia. I used to work for Kung Fu Records and I've spoken with a lot of people involved with the Vandals over the years. I thought you might remove some of that stuff I posted but it's all true and hopefully it can be referenced and verified to help the page be more fair and accurate. Simple things like where he was born and grew up, etc.

What you need to know is that Joe is the victim of an extortion attempt that L.A.P.D. and l.a. county D.A.'s office are both investigating.

This is public record but be careful of negative material about him because a lot of it is planted by the people that were not happy with how the case was settled, and chose to extort money out of Joe if he pay money to Jan Sakert, Steve Pfauter, Steve Jensen's estate, and Chalmer Lumary. He called the police instead, and the extortionists have been poisoning his reputation on the internet ever since. So Wikipedia is one of their main tools to make him look maniacal so they can justify their legal case they tried to ruin him with. It was so much crap and lies and greed it was sad.

It's possible that devoting so much space to accusations from people he was in a band with 20 years ago for a couple years, is biased considering what they are trying to do to him. The fact that this stuff is repeated in two sections on this page is extremely misleading and makes this guys life look like it's all about what disgruntled ex band mates that sued him want to get across. He's never plagerized anything and this page makes him look like he's under a cloud. Not very useful, and not very fair.

the credit on the 1993 version of their first recordings says "all songs written by Joe Escalante" it doesn't say words and music by Joe Escalante. You should look at it. What does it mean? A court determined there was a deal for ownership when the current band allowed Jensen and Ackerman to perform under the name, 14 years later they thought they could make some money by suing him. He settled with them. What was the terms of the settlement? We don't know. I can appreciate your attempts to tell both sides but be careful you don't do people's enemies work for them by putting clouds over people.

actually, I don't think this stuff should even be here, it should be in the vandals page if people want to see it. You have put it here which makes Joe look like his life is embattled. These people sued all the Vandals, not just joe.

Jan had a few singers before Stevo. Why say that Steve Jensen founded the band if it's not true? Where is your evidence that Stevo founded this band? Everything I've been able to find says he was third or fourth singer depending on who's memory you accept.

It doesn't matter but why is one version in here?It's deceiving. It's designed to make Joe look like he stole someone's punk band. What about the bass players like Steve Gonzales or Steve Soto that were in the early version of the band. According to Joe, it was Jan's band, he and Steve Gonzales started it and went through a few singers and drummers before they settled on Stevo then Joe on drums. Then Gonzalez quit because he hated Stevo. Then Steve Soto came in, then Steve Pfauter. Steve P ended up quitting the band because he also had problems with Steve which stemmed from what he eventually died of, drug abuse. This is documented. Why doesn't anyone mention it? Why so interested in plagerism that we know didn't occur because that was the only thing that has been fully established by the court.

Jan Sakert works for the D.A.'s office and is probably very easy to get ahold of to verify this. Joe himself is easy to get a hold of as are any of the current vandals, joe@vandals.com, etc. I have corresponded with them myself.

Joe was born in Long Beach, he grew up in Rossmoor, and is 1/2 Mexican 1/2 Irish. He doesn't take bullfighting lessons. He trains and fights regularly though.

Whoa, hey there Humann...you're inserting comments into an old post left here by another user a long time ago. That conversation was with Fretlisa and it was in early December 2006. At the time we weren't really sticking to the "keep topical conversations in 1 place" guideline so that user was leaving me messages on my talk page and I was leaving responses on theirs, etc etc so it's hard to see the complete conversation just in this post. If you want to respond to Fretlisa's comments you should do so at that user's talk page, as they likely aren't watching my page anymore. You can copy & paste their comments from here into their talk page if you want to address specific things in them. That way you can start a conversation with that user. You may want to glance at the talk page guidelines, especially as they apply to user pages. One thing to note is that all new comments should go at the bottom. It's not very polite, nor easy to follow, to insert your comments as breaks in a previously posted comment. You could quote the whole section and then dissect it if you wanted, but leave the original post intact. That way people can follow the conversation easily. --IllaZilla 04:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You may see some older comments from me on Fretlisa's talk page that come off kind of opinionated. Keep in mind it's an old conversation & I hadn't learned much about the issue in question yet. Since then I've been very careful not to take either side in the debate, but rather to focus on improving the articles with citations and reliably published information. --IllaZilla 04:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry. Fixed it. I just get kinda riled when I see such falsehoods parroted by those who admire Joe so much that they think he's telling the truth. I really don't know enough about wikipedia yet I'm sure. Thanks for your patience.

Steve humann 06:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for the email. --IllaZilla 08:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia

You're doing a great job. I will provide some referenced info when I can. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fretlisa (talk • contribs) 19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Alien

I think "xenomorph" is the closest thing to naming the species as it ever got, even though "xenomorph" was really just another technical term from "alien". The same goes for the alien of the Predator series. It's hard to characterize two creatures that basically have no names in the films that they represent, and are only recognizable to fans as the names of their respective series. Too bad they just didn't name them all Butch, or Spike. Bignole 16:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"Xenomorph" was used in Aliens by Gorman when he first addressed the Marines. Outside of Aliens I'm not sure if it was used again. Now, we should discuss the "special editions", because their scenes are not encyclopedic, even after 11 years. There isn't anything notable about them. Other than the "ox scene" there wasn't any notable reason why they were deleted. Notice how Star Wars does it; they don't list every scene just the most important one and cite reactions to those additions. Bignole 16:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the tip on signing. I finally registered because of you. I didn't think it was so important. Re "Alien" universe, I think the term "Alien" should always be used in reference to the Alien series' creature because "xenomorph" has a general meaning that could refer to many things.----David Be 23:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I plan on doing some major work on the Alien-related articles over the summer. I don't have time at the moment due to grad school. I'm actually hoping to create a Wikiproject related to it, if I can figure out how. Any contributions you want to make are greatly appreciated! --IllaZilla 01:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Good work NPOV-ing all The Suicide Machines album articles. --Habap 13:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Aquabats revision

Hello, Sorry for going in and changing things, I've never done any editing or anything on wikipedia. I will look through some old boxes for my demo "Revenge of the Midget Punchers," but this was a low-budget, do-it-yourself kind of thing...... so the rather homemade looking cover might be an "unverifiable" source by Wikipedia's standards. I can also send some early photos that prove my status in the band. I understand that everything must be from a reliable source, and that me just saying that I was the original guitarist does not make it true. I appreciate you helping me get a little credit.

Talk pages

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Xenomorph (Alien), is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--McGeddon 18:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I deleted a comment that did not follow the talk page guidelines, as it was a fan-theory proposal of some fictional content related to the movie, and had nothing to do with a discussion of the article itself. --IllaZilla 19:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No Use For A Name

You have recently changed the article from the correct "No Use For A Name" to "No Use for a Name". This is incorrect. Please check the official website if you really need to set your mind at ease. To be most factual it is either "no use for a name" with no capitals, which is how it appeared on earlier releases, or as the article is now titled (as confirmed by their website, and their summary as Google provides during a search. If you are going to change the name or redirect pages in future, could you please discuss your changes on the discussion page. Happy editing. R:128.40.76.3 14:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed this issue at Talk:No Use For A Name. Please see there for continued discussion. Specifically, however, I would like to note that you are incorrect both about the official website (which prints the name in all caps and therefore gives no indication of how it would be capitalized within a sentence), and their Google summary (which uses the correct "No Use for a Name"...see here. Finally, it appears that you yourself moved the page initially from the correct "No Use for a Name" to your preferred capitalization of "No Use For A Name" without any discussion on the article's talk page, so I find it hypocritical that you would suggest that I not make changes without prior discussion. --IllaZilla 19:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

???

Can you check out the papa roach talk page? (genre the third) User:Melodic Horror

Well I have no interest in Papa Roach but I have heard several of their tunes. Let's see, it currently lists "Hard rock, Alternative metal, Nu metal, & Rapcore." I think all of those are just fine & describe them accurately. I took a look at the history too. I disagree that they fit any of the characteristics of punk rock, post-grunge, hardcore punk, etc. They have next to nothing in common with those genres except that they play rock music and pretend to be angry. --IllaZilla 23:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sucking or blowing?

(Does that ever sound like a really bad section title or what?)
Anyways, I noticed your edit in the xenomorph article, and thought you might be interested to know that, technically, there's no such thing as suction. A 'vacuum' is the result of one area having lower pressure than another. Material that's "sucked" isn't actually drawn in by the vacuum, but is rather pushed by the air (or other matter, I suppose) in the higher pressure area.
For example, if you suck on a straw, you aren't directly attracting the beverage to your mouth. Instead, you're creating a low-pressure area. The high air pressure around the beverage is constantly pushing on the liquid. Since the liquid has high pressure on one side, and low pressure on the other, it travels through the straw.
Similarly, the alien wasn't "sucked" into space. Rather, the higher air pressure inside, when compared to the drastically lower pressure outside, pushed the alien out. Bladestorm 00:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, not to get in a scientific argument here, but isn't that the definition of "sucking?" See Wiktionary:

Noun:

suction:

The principle of physics by which matter is drawn from one space into another because the pressure inside the second space is lower than the pressure in the first.

I've replied in the alien resurrection discussion page, but, for the record (and you could've easily found this in the wikipedia article on suction), "vacuums do not innately attract matter". The easy test is to try to identify the source of the force (not intending to rhyme here). Do you believe the absence of matter somehow attracts matter? That there's some sort of attractive force going on here? (if so, I'd looove to see a source on that novel theory) Bladestorm 08:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've continued the discussion there, but just FYI the reason I reverted the changes without discussion first was to point out in the edit summary that I was starting a discussion on the talk page. Since there was no discussion on this yet, it's unlikely that people were watching the talk page or would have noticed that I'd tried to start a discussion unless I sparked it by making an edit change. --IllaZilla 16:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I may get a bit terse sometimes. (uh... 'terse' is a word, right? I sooo wish I could find my bloody dictionary) Bladestorm 17:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"revert self-promotion"

Self-promotion? How am I promoting myself? None of those people are me. If the creators of the said "factions" of the Aquacadets are non-notable, then are the factions notable themselves? If not, then just remove any mention of the factions. --Lyght 10:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but for you to have put in such specific information about the creators of the different fations, I had to assume that you were either one of them, a member of a faction, or connected to them in such a way that you would want to promote them in the article. Don't get me wrong, I'm a cadet myself, and I'm the one who put in the mention of the different factions. But in retrospect you're right, they're probably not notable by Wikipedia standards. I thought it might bear mentioning in a section about cadets to mention that sub-factions had formed, but listing them off and naming their creators seems promotional and extraneous. I certainly doubt we'd be able to provide references for any of it. If you wanted to remove mention of the factions, I wouldn't object. --IllaZilla 16:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you send me an email today?

Sorry, just trying to verify that it's you. Thanks for all your help and time.

Steve humann 02:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes that was me. Sorry I forgot to sign it. --IllaZilla 04:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

King Dork

It's not an opinion. If you look closely at the cover of the book, you'll see it's actually the 1985 cover of The Catcher in the Rye. --Fez2005 06:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but to call the book "somewhat of a modern telling of The Catcher in the Rye," simply as implied by the cover, is your opinion. The reason that the cover is an alteration of the Catcher cover is that the main character in King Dork discovers his father's copy of Catcher and it becomes an important plot device. It's fine to mention the cover, as that is obvious, but if you're trying to draw parallels between the plots of King Dork and The Catcher in the Rye then you'll need outside sources to reference and support those claims. Otherwise, simply stating that it's a "modern telling" of Catcher is an opinion. See WP:NOR. The article definitely needs a lot of work as currently it's just a stub, so adding information from professional reviews certainly would improve it and could possibly support the claim you're making. --IllaZilla 06:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Threequel (film term)

Hello. I see you also reverted the addition of this new term. I've prodded the article. You might want to keep an eye on it. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've taken it to the project: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Bold Text

Could you explain why you reverted my edits to the Unwritten Law album pages please. Following the guidlines set out in WP:ALBUM#Chronology, "The current album should always be in boldface". I am not sure what you mean by the bold type doesn't show up in small text, as I can see it perfectly well and all other albums are formatted in this way. Unless you can explain why bold shouldn't be used, I will replace with bold. Cheers. Nouse4aname 11:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I didn't realize it was a guideline. Honestly I don't see teh bolding when it's small text. Maybe due to screen resolution or my text size setting. Anyway, it just seemed pointless since it says "this album" right above it. But you're right, thanks for pointing out the guideline. --IllaZilla 19:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey no worries, just wasn't sure why you weren't seeing it, thought it was just me that could! It does seem a little pointless, but it kinda looks better formatted like that (if only you could see it!). Cheers. Nouse4aname 09:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Rocket From The Crypt

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia and am not really sure how to reach out to other users,but I did some updating on the RFTC page and it looks like you "corrected" my updates. I am not sure why you did that as Peter Davis was Rocket's first booking agent (91 - 93) them Bob Lawton was their agent from 93 - 96 and them it was Stormy after that. It looks like you deleleted Peter and Bob. If you want to be accurate, they should be listed their. I should know, as their manager, I had to fire Peter and hired Bob. Stormy was their last booking agent. Thanks Greg Ribeye103 21:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Ribeye103

Well this is the right way to reach out for help, so thanks for doing that. I really didn't know if you were correct or not (though if you were their manager then I'm sure you are correct), but the reason I took it out was because any info in Wikipedia has to be supported by an outside, third-party reference. In other words, it has to have a citation. Now I know that sounds hypocritical because I wrote the RFTC article and it has no references at all. I got most of the info from an oral history article published in Alternative Press. I've been meaning to go back and insert references from that and other sources I have lying around (I'm an RFTC fan from San Diego and I have a bunch of stuff to work from), but I haven't had time. So basically I reverted your addition because I had no way of verifying whether it was true or not and therefore couldn't reference it. Also, booking agents and such are pretty extraneous to a "band members" section and aren't really considered notable for inclusion in an article. The only reason I included the "known associates" section in the first place was because those people are listed and interviewed in the AP article, so their connnections to the band can be referenced and some of their quotations from the article might be used. --IllaZilla 23:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Now it seems like the known associates section is completely gone ... Did you do that? I have to admit, I was happy to be included as a know associate as I've always been proud of my association with them ... I still see the guys occassionally. I saw John, Pete and Andy last weekend and am working with Adam on some tuff for my new day job.Ribeye103Ribeye103 15:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribeye103 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

MTX Chronology

If you look at the EP chronologies, they show the studio albums in them, yet the album chronologies did not show the EPs. I'm just trying to get a bit of consistency, so you can go through the entire chronology. Either the album chronologies should include the EPs (which would make more sense, as you don't miss any releases out), or the EP chronologies should not include the albums...which is it? Nouse4aname 08:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to add, if you look at the Green Day chronologies, they include every release, including eps, live albums and compilations (of green day tracks). This is just one example, and in my opinion is a comprehensive and much more informative method of making a chronology than having separate ones for singles, albums, eps, live albums etc. Obviously singles should be kept separate, as inclusion of these would be too overwhelming, but a combined album, ep, live, compilation chronology is far better in my opinion. As for WP:Album: "Only studio albums, usually excluding live albums, compilations, singles and EPs should be included in the chronology" - Ignore all rules!!!. Perhaps this should be changed? Nouse4aname 09:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know, I created all the MTX album/EP articles. I agree with you that the guideline should probably be tweaked somehow. It looks like the Green Day articles just aren't following it. Anyway, the problem I had is that every infobox includes a chronology, even the EP and single infoboxes, so I wanted to put something in them. What I did for the EPs was put whichever albums they came between, to show the reader where they fell in the overall band chronology. If you were to change them back, I'll leave them. I always include live albums in the chronology anyway, as they are full albums too. I agree that a combined chronology would be much better. --IllaZilla 19:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Suicide Machines Logo

So what's the deal with logos anyways? I see them on other pages, why aren't they allowed? Just wanted to know what's up with that. Fliptopsean (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically because logos are copyrighted, and for a copyrighted image to be used on Wikipedia it must meet certain criteria for "fair use." A logo put in the infobox simply as decoration doesn't meet these criteria. If the logo were notable or significant in some way, you could add it as an image within the body of the article alongside a discussion of its significance. But there has to be some discussion of it, otherwise it's just decoration. The only image that should be in the infobox of an article about a musical artist is a free image (photo) of that artist, to provide visual identification. Another issue is that most of the "logos" being used in these infoboxes aren't really logos at all, just stylized lettering or particular fonts of the band name. This isn't really set in stone and there are some discussions going on at Wikiproject: Musicians and elsewhere about it, but the general guideline is that if an image looks like it's strictly decorative, then it shouldn't be there. Right now you'll see some articles that use logos and some that don't, because no one's gotten around to the task of weeding out all the ones that don't meet fair use criteria. But that doesn't mean it's OK to keep plastering "logos" in every article about musicians, because they definitely aren't appropriate most of the time. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Alien Vs Predator

Hello, I'm currently rewriting Alien Vs. Predator (film) and need a little help. In this featurette, Anderson mentions the work of an "Eron Vandanikin"?. I don't know how to spell the name and was hoping you could help me out here. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A little Googling helped with the spelling. Apparently he's referring to Erich von Däniken, who wrote some controversial stuff (see here) about "ancient astronaut" theories. Essentially he believes that advanced alien cultures visited Earth in the past and had a hand in building the pyramids, etc. Evidently Anderson used this idea as inspiration for the AVP plot device about the Predators coming to Earth for thousands of years and building the pyramids and whatnot. Definitely something that could be worked into the article when discussing the film's inspiration and writing. I've been working on that article myself on a less consistent basis, mostly policing vandalism and trying to keep fan theories and opinions out. Unfortuantely all the AVP:R hype leads to increases of that kind of stuff. You're doing good work, keep it up! --IllaZilla (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that. I tried google but i was way off. I'm going to use all web sources available and then rent out the DVD for the commentaries and special features. Not a huge fan of the movie but Anderson's intentions and imagination were in the right place, and the movie was a lot more original than AVP:R :\. Anyway, thanks again and keep that vandalism away : ) M3tal H3ad (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I also have another question, should predators and aliens be capitalized? Seems strange as Humans don't do it so I'm not sure if Aliens should. M3tal H3ad (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO they should be capitalized, as they are the titular characters/creatures. In the credits the actor wearing the outfit and playing the character is credited as either "Alien" or "Predator", at least they were in AVP:R when I stayed through the credits. The capitalization differentiates the titular character from any generic alien or predator. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've finished my re-write, and was hoping you could go over the article if you get some free time, fix grammar/spelling/awkward sentences as you seem to be a fan of A and P movies. All that is left to add is DVD releases and the budget- which i can't get an exact amount on. I added my name for the Alien project which i think could be successful if the right amount of editors are around. M3tal H3ad (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I went through the article and made quite a few edits for grammar/spelling/sentence structure and moved a few things around for flow, etc. Overall I found it very well-written. Thanks for all the hard work! I'm going to go ahead with the creation of the Alien project even though it was suggested that a task force might be better, as I think the scope of the project is a bit wider than just a task force. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. There was one thing that I placed a citation needed tag on. It was the bit that says Anderson's script called for 5 Predators, but it was cut down to 3 due to budgets. I feel that needs a citation to prove that it's true. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much! M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the Predalien thing in your edit summary. I added a DVD and music section so the article has pretty much everything except two pictures that i have requested from users on flickr. M3tal H3ad (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the article. I bought the Alien Quadrilogy yesterday so you know what happens next ;), although i don't know which article i should start on first. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and AVP for FA. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have the Quadrilogy too. I'm totally down to help you improve & advance these articles. Why not start at the beginning, with Alien? I'd say as far as notability & historical/cultural impact it's certainly the most significant of the bunch. My involvement may be limited due to working full-time plus working on my masters thesis, but I'll devote as much attention as I can. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to help. Taking yor suggestion to consideration i decided to work of A:R, because it has NO content and is the least influential, start of easy :) Goodluck with your thesis. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Alien: Resurrection is basically done, just need to beef up the lead and Releases section. It's pretty poorly written so i will go over it the next few days. I'll probably do Aliens next as its my favorite film of the lot. M3tal H3ad (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome work. When I get a chance I'll read through A:R and do copy/grammar edits, etc. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

One down, four to go. Thanks for your help! M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed. Man, you are awesome! --IllaZilla (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that, i'll give it a rundown and increase the lead a bit and nominate, although more pictures would of been nice. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of logos

Please give a working link for the consensus on this issue. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You can view the discussion at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Logos. It appears we've agreed that, by and large, most of the "logos" that are currently in the infoboxes of musician articles aren't appropriate or at least aren't in the right place. We're trying to add some language into the template to the effect that the artist's name should be written in plain text. Apologies for not having a working link earlier. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Very good. I now concur with the consensus. Wwwhatsup (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That discussion seems to be about whether or not to use logos in the blue line above the image instead of plain text. We weren't doing that at Cradle of Filth - we were using the logo in place of a photo in the image bit, because we can't get a free one. Are you sure you were right to remove it? Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition to agreement that the name field of the infobox should only contain plain text, the general consensus is also that if a logo is notable, it should be in the body of the article alongside a discussion of its significance (who designed it, what it symbolizes, etc.) I don't object to the logo be used in the CoF article, just to where it was located. It had some discussion beneath it, but it merits more. For a good example of how to incorporate a logo into an article, see Tool. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue concerning the My Chemical Romance logo here, and stop the edit warring until a discussion has been started and a consensus has been reached so that everyone agrees. This is obviously a controversial matter and it needs to be discussed so I will put the logo back up and you can remove it when and if it is decided that it should not be there. Thank you. Timmeh! 02:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in the process of addressing the issue on another page. Please allow me a few minutes to compose a well-reasoned argument. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed the issue at User:Asenine/Logodebate. Let's continue it there, since it spreads across multiple articles and not just the MCR one.--IllaZilla (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work

Great work logo cleaning. Say diligent. Just wanted your opinion on this edit to the Asia article. I don't see any accompanying text. It looks more like an edit that simply wants to add a graphic without any encyclopedic content... just some flash. Your thoughts. 142.167.66.181 (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally, that is strictly decorative. Without any accompanying discussion it completely fails WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NONFREE. Gotten rid of. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus usually indicates a general agreement

For you to claim that this (Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Logos) is consensus on the issue, is not accurate at all. You seem to be solidly against the idea, but that doesn't make it consensus. While there seem to be a few people who agree with you there seem to be just as many if not more, who disagree. The only consensus that I see is to not add a logo field to the info box. There is no consensus to remove all band logos. Regardless this is something that should be handled at WP:LOGO and not WP:MUSIC. --T-rex 03:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion started specifically about whether or not it was appropriate to have logos in the name field of the musical artist infobox. It branched out from there into discussions/arguments about the general use of logos in music articles, but there was a consensus on the original issue. The decision was that there should not be logos in the "name" field of the infobox, as it is intended to be a text-only field which makes the article more accessible according to the intentions of WP:ACCESS. It was also generally agreed that a majority of the "logos" being used in this way were non-notable and strictly decorative, so it was also agreed that this was not consistent with WP:FAIR. In fact, once consensus was reached on this issue the template page section of "Name" was changed to read: "The name of the group or artist ("the act") in plain text only. Logos and other graphics are to be avoided in this field in accordance with WP:ACCESS and WP:FAIR. This field is mandatory." (you can view it here: Template:Infobox Musical artist#Name). --IllaZilla (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note in the discussion that it is at best unclear whether the provisions of WP:LOGOS (which allows logos to be used in most cases strictly for identification) applies to the logos of musical acts. WP:NONFREE (a policy of which WP:LOGOS is a subset of guidelines) only specifies that "Team and corporate (my emphasis) logos [may be used] for identification." In an article about a musical act, a logo is at best a secondary form of identification because we already have the name of the act in plain text and a field for a free or fair-use image of the act. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to move the logo that would be fine. Instead you seem hell bent on removing all of them, which is not remotely in line with WP:LOGO. Continually referencing some policy page change made less then a week ago is not helping your case. Furthermore the discussion on which you have rationalized this change to policy does not come to any consensus. --T-rex 06:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note: I'm not the one who changed the template page. It was changed by another editor after consensus on the issue of the name field was reached. This is proof that there was a consensus on that particular issue. I'm not saying that the template page is policy, merely that it reflects consensus and that the consensus is based on policies and guidelines. As I said above, it's not safe to assume that WP:LOGO applies to the logos of musical acts. It's a subset of WP:NONFREE, which only specifies teams and corporations. The reason it does that is because logos are the primary means of identification for teams and corporations. Not so for bands. It's impossible to take a picture of a corporation, but fairly easy to take one of a band. That, plus the name in plain text, provides identification. So it's clear that a logo doesn't belong in the name field of the infobox. As you can read on the template page itself, this decision was based on WP:ACCESS and WP:FAIR. Logos also don't belong in the "Img" field, because as the template page says that field is for "an image of the act (my emphasis), sufficiently clear for display at 220 pixels' width." ie. a free or fair-use picture of the artist.

Further to that, and the area which is still under discussion/debate on the talk page, is the question of what exactly constitutes a "logo" in terms of a musical act, and to what degree a logo may or may not be notable. The general agreement seems to be that if the logo is notable, and verifiable, then the proper place for it is in the article body alongside a referenced discussion of its significance. This allows the image to add some meaningful informational content to the article, rather than just serving as decoration. Without critical commentary then it is likely that the use of the image fails WP:NONFREE and that the logo probably isn't notable. If you feel that is notable, then it should be in the article body with some type of referenced discussion of its significance (ie. Who designed it? In what context is it used? Does it have some symbolic meaning? Does it have any cultural, historical, or artistic significance?). Obviously this is too much to cram into the infobox, and is best left to editors who are working seriously on individual articles. If there is nothing to say about it other than "it's their logo," then it's probably non-notable and therefore fails fair-use criteria.

The only images I've removed are those that blatantly don't meet any of these criteria: Logos in the name or image field of the infobox, with no commentary or reference, or logos in article bodies that contain absolutely no info or commentary about them other than "this is the band's logo." Such uses are clearly in violation of WP:NONFREE and aren't serving the purpose of creating a free encyclopedia. They're simply decorative. There are a number of articles I've come across where the logo does have a citation and some kind of meaningful commentary about it, and in those situations I've left it alone. But I have no qualms about removing fair use abuse when I see it. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? I said nothing about the img field, and any arguments about WP:NONFREE are incorporated as a part of WP:LOGO anyhow. I agree with you that putting logo's in the image field is really dumb, but that doesn't extend to that all logo's should be removed. Nor does it even extend into there being a consensus to remove all logos, especially in spite of your inability to note any. Should this logo be removed as well? --T-rex 23:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, because the use of that logo is explicitly allowed by both WP:NONFREE and WP:LOGO because it is the logo of a corporation. You want to get technical? Take a look at the image tag for a copyrighted logo: "This is a logo of an organization, item, or event"...it does not say anything about bands or other musical acts. Then go to WP:LOGO: "Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons)." If the logo is of interest for design or artistic reasons, then those reasons should be discussed in the article using referenced commentary. Where there is no commentary at all, or simply "this is the band's logo," then it creates the impression that the logo's inclusion is promotional. The "reasonably familiar" part may be debatable on a case-by-case basis, but I seriously doubt that some black metal band's name stylized as unreadable blood and vomit around a pentagram is as reasonably familiar as, say, the logo of a company or sports team. Again, to quote WP:LOGO: "In the case of any dispute, the burden of proof is on the person who wishes to include the logo." I am in no way saying that all logos should be removed. There are a number of featured articles that have sections about their subject's artistic style and cover art, and they use logos with excellent referenced commentary that clearly shows their notability and significance. Remember, show, don't tell. If the removal of an image leads to its orphaning, then the uploader will be notified via bot and will be able to go to the article and see why it was removed, and make a case for including it. It takes a week after notification for the image to get deleted, plenty of time for an editor to make a reasonable case for keeping it in an article. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again you have failed to read what I wrote. No need to go rambling on about orphaned images or anything like that. You're new argument that using a logo is somehow "promotional" is absurd. So to is your argument that somehow a band logo is less familiar than a sports team logo. I know you will try to prove that by comparing some well known team with some little known band, but reverse is true as well. Simply saying that bands are not explicitly mention in WP:LOGO does not imply that they are not covered by it. I see you disagree with WP:LOGO and thats fine, but you can't expect others to dismiss this guideline because of that. --T-rex 13:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have read and understood everything you've written, and I feel I have addressed every point you've raised multiple times. The use of logos in articles about musicians, without any referenced commentary explaining their significance or notability, creates the impression that their use is promotional and therefore violates WP:LOGOS. I have only removed logos that are clearly in violation of this; ie. logos in infoboxes and ones that are simply slapped into articles for decoration without any supporting referenced info. I don't disagree with WP:LOGO, I am in fact interpreting it quite literally and making sure that logos in articles meet/follow its provisions. Nothing in WP:LOGOS translates to "you are free to plaster logos willy-nilly into whatever articles you please because they look cool." It is precisely those kind of uses that I have been engaged in removing, and that is precisely why we have policies and guidelines for the use of logos and other non-free media. I consider this conversation concluded. You may enjoy talking in circles or to brick walls, but I've had enough of it. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Logos

Per the Marduk page will you put the 70 or so logos I added, back into article bodies, back? Or is this wishful thiking? Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no plans to do that. Almost all of the "logos" you put in were simply moved from the infobox into the article body with the boilerplate caption "the logo of ___ that has appeared on every release" (or sometimes "adorned" or "graced the cover of"...total peacock terms and POV). They added nothing to the articles except decoration. I browsed the discographies of a few of the artists and found that for a number of them the particular logo being used did not in fact appear on every release. Since not a single one of the logos had any meaningful referenced commentary, I felt totally justified in pulling them as fair use abuse. Another editor made a case for the Marduk logo being notable and is/was trying to build some meaningful article content about it, so I left it in as a compromise. You can see our discussion about it on the talk page there. I know this must come off as mean, and I promise I'm not stalking you or anything, it's just that your opinion that "every article about a musical act needs a logo in it" is pretty much the exact opposite of what we have all been talking about at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Logos. I know that there isn't a clear consensus in that discussion, but it is pretty blatantly obvious to me that in an article about a musical act, a logo without any informational commentary is strictly cruft and therefore violates the spirit, and quite likely the letter, of WP:NONFREE. Logos that are genuinely notable might be valid for inclusion, if there's some kind of referenced meaningful commentary about them. But if there isn't any, then the logo should stay out of the article by default. We shouldn't leave them in simply because something meaningful might be written about them later. That definitely goes against WP:FAIR and WP:N. I'm not trying to be a logo nazi, I promise, but I have no qualms about removing fair use abuse when I see it. And sticking logos in dozens of articles purely for decoration is definitely abuse. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, for the record, you re-added 44 by my count, not 70, over a 3-day period. It probably felt like more, but just FYI. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you "logo watch" WarCry? A user there is having a struggle with the new rules. 156.34.217.154 (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing Libs, I'll keep an eye on it. It looks like that editor has already violated 3RR, but the article looks fine right now (as far as the logo situation) so I'll wait for some more activity and see where we go from there. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not OK anymore it's been logo'd 156.34.220.142 (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a rather long and detailed message on the article's talk page. I feel it's one of my more well-reasoned posts on the subject, but I've noticed as this discussion has gone on I've become more and more verbose to the point where most people just aren't reading my comments anymore. BTW: I read your message about why you choose to edit anonymously as opposed to having an account, and I think it's a neat idea. It definitely would keep me more detached from WP and I think able to look at things more neutrally and dispassionately. But isn't it hard to follow articles or topics that you're keepig tabs on? I mean, can you keep a watchlist or something if your IP is constantly shifting as you move about the library? Just curious. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Review an edit

Would you kindly review this edit. The German wikipedia does not allow any fair use, yet has had this logo (B/W reversed) in its de:Horde (Band) article for a long time. The corresponding trademark template is heavily used so this doesn't seem to be a simple oversight. Gimmetrow 00:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Logo

Your self-righteous logo-deleting ass removed Minor Threat's logo from their article, when there was a lengthy mention of the logo in the article. It should've been inserted there, instead of deleted. But you don't care about improving content. You hate logos. That's why you never even read the article or even gave consideration for including it. Thanks to you, the logo's been deleted, and now it can't be used at all. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I don't appreciate your tone. I find it very uncivil and will report you if it continues. Second, I removed the logo from the "Name" field of the infobox, which (if it belonged anywhere) was definitely not where it belonged. See the consensus at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Logos. After that discussion the wording of Template:Infobox Musical artist#Name was changed to read: "The name of the group or artist ("the act") in plain text only (emphasis added). Logos and other graphics are to be avoided in this field in accordance with WP:ACCESS and WP:FAIR." As you can see this consensus was based on policies and guidelines. So I removed the image from the "Name" field.

Third, it's not up to me to place the image somewhere else in the article. I don't see any section in the article where it would be appropriate to put it. There's no text in the article about how they created the logo, who designed their album covers, or anything else about their visual style. So there's no place that the logo belongs without some supporting text to make it meet the criteria of WP:FAIR, WP:NONFREE, or WP:LOGO. Please note: band logos are not the same as company logos, which can usually be used without supporting text because companies are non-corporeal entities and their logos are their primary means of identification. For a non-free band logo to merit inclusion in an article, it has to have some supporting referenced commentary along with it. This image had none. And it's not my burden to provide some just so it can stay in the article. The image should have automatically received an orphan tag after I removed it from the article, which automatically notifies the uploader. That means that whoever uploaded the image had a week to put it back in the article, but clearly they didn't so it was deleted.

Finally, Minor Threat didn't have a logo. That image was just the lettering of their name taken off of the Out of Step album or the In My Eyes EP. You clearly have a very broad definition of what constitutes a "logo." I dont' see what's notable about that image at all, as that lettering was only used twice in their short career. And don't try to tell me "it's on their shirts and stickers", because Minor Threat didn't sell merchandise. Any merchandise you see is probably unauthorized. FYI before you go throwing accusations at me: I know a lot about Minor Threat.

I don't "hate logos" at all. I simply uphold the policy that in order for a non-free logo to be used on Wikipedia it must meet WP's non-free content criteria. And it must actually be a logo and be notable in some way. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some fan site for you to pretty up with whatever cruft you want. The only logos I've removed from articles are ones that 1) are inappropriately being used in infoboxes; 2) have no supporting referenced text accompanying them; or 3) have been uploaded under false license tags. Again, I refer you to WP:LOGO: "In the case of any dispute, the burden of proof is on the person who wishes to include the logo." No one's said anything on the article's talk page or anywhere else in the 3 weeks since I removed the logo, so clearly there were no objections. I have no qualms about removing fair-use abuse when I see it, and making Wikipedia more free is improving content, as producing a free encyclopedia is our primary goal. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Pancake Mountain

i got forwarded an email complaining that you edited links to our page. you stated that 'A band's performance on a local TV show isn't particularly notable and adding numerous links to the same website across multiple articles could be construed as spam" Where did you get this information from? we are seen in numerous markets outside of D.C. (including Manhattan and Chicago) The shows are also streamed online and the DVD's are sold in Countries such as Japan in Australia. The L.A. times named us one of the 10 best TV shows of 2007. Why would you take down one line about Tegan and Sara appearing on our show but leave up there appearance on Canadian talk show, CityTV's "Ethnosonic" (which i like by the way). The newest edition of Billboard magazine has a picture of Tegan and Sara performing on our show (with our sheep puppet, Rufus) on the first page. If others find this notable, how do you to decide it's not. is there no discussion or fact checking? Of over 150 bands and artist appearing on our show less then about 10 are referenced on wiki and none are posted by us (though we have corrected some). Sorry if this is not the correct place to discuss this, i wasn't sure. -- Amy, Pancake Mountain --Glenburnie (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenburnie (talk • contribs) 00:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for addressing this with me. The links and bits in articles that I removed were added by User: Carrie oki. You can see by her (I assume it's a "her") edit history that her only activity on Wikipedia has been inserting links to videos on Pancake Mountain's website and adding blurbs into articles to the effect of "x artist performed y song on Pancake Mountain on z date". None of the information that she added was referenced, and all information in Wikipedia articles must be attributed to reliable third-party sources (see WP:V, which also says that unreferenced material can be removed at any time). In addition, adding external links to videos is not in line with Wikipedia's policies on external linking. See WP:EL for guidelines on what is and isn't appropriate to link from Wikipedia articles. Also see WP:NOT, which is an official policy (specifically "Wikipedia is not a collection of links"). She also did not state why it was notable that any of these bands perfomed on the show (bands perform on television shows all the time, after all. It's usually not notable from an encyclopedic standpoint, even if the show itself might be notable). Since Carrie oki's only activity was adding mentions of Pancake Mountain and links to the PM website, it left me with the impression that her mission on Wikipedia was to promote Pancake Mountain. This is not part of Wikipedia's mission or goals. Our goal is to create a free encyclopedia. I really don't know anything about the show itself, I was merely reviewing Carrie oki's edits and found them to be inappropriate by Wikipedia's standards. I did not notice, for example, the bit about Tegan and Sara's performance on the Canadian TV show. However, if I were directly involved in working on that particular article I would probably remove that bit too, as it also doesn't seem to be notable. In the article about Pancake Mountain itself it seems perfectly appropriate to list or mention some of the notable acts who have appeared on the show. However, going around to the articles about each individual artist and inserting blurbs and links about their appearances on the show seems to be a promotional agenda. Going across multiple articles adding links to the same website, for example, is definitely a red flag for spam. I'm not an admin here on Wikipedia or anything like that, just an active editor with an eye for things that aren't appropriate or in line with WP's policies and guidelines, or its goal of building a free encyclopedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and articulated response. I agree. --Glenburnie (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Eyes

Can you do a favour? The blocked IP that you rv'd off the AC/DC page yesterday is back from his 24 hour block and blanking valid references from several pages claiming they don't meet wp:rs. They're not great but they aren't bad and the user has been pushed off of the Led Zeppelin page by consensus and so he's setting his sights on blanking references that he (and only he) seems to find unworthy. It's just POV gone amuck. Many are book references... he is careless in his edits and simply blanks out mass text without double checking. I am turning in for the night. Could you keep him in check. If he goes 3RR on anything he will get an extended block. Take note that the user also edits under the account "Clashwho" and under the account "CHawke"... so if he reverts past 3 with either of those names... they're all going out to WP:SSP check and likely indefinite blocks for all. Thanks and good night. Libs 156.34.211.41 (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at his edit history and left him a message with a litte advice (and an brief explanation of your IP situation...hope you don't mind). I didn't see anything violating 3RR, though, and it seems other editors have been policing/reverting his changes. I'm turning in for the night myself, so hopefully things will stay calm until tomorrow. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Chawke. Dammit, somebody do a freaking IP check. I have a LONG, productive and positive history editing Wikipedia. Threatening me with an indefinite ban is outrageous. There is NO organization that tracks worldwide sales. There is NO RIAA equivalent. That's why all worldwide sales claims have no place being presented as fact in an encyclopedia. See the Led Zeppelin and AC/DC talk pages where I have pointed out that ALL of the cites for their worldwide sales claims appeared AFTER Wikipedia already claimed them. ALL OF THEM. Care to explain that? It's easy. It's called "Wikiality" and it makes me sick. You should be ashamed for enabling this disgrace. "Libs" is the worst of the bunch. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note, I didn't accuse you of anything. I merely wanted to explain Libs' situation and give a constructive suggestion. I don't really know anything about tracking album sales. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Libs accused me of plenty. Look at Led Zeppelin's talk page. Look at where the 300 million sales figure came from. It's clear as day. It came from a known vandal, stayed in the article for months because Wikipedia editors aren't doing their job, and was subsequently published in "reputable" sources because lazy journalists used Wikipedia as a reference. Principled Wikipedia editors shouldn't stand for it. I'm not standing for it. Are you going to just look the other way? If so, you can at least not interfere with me rectifying this garbage and call off this stalkerish "Libs" character. I'd appreciate it if you would help me fix this instead of letting it fester. Allowing this nonsense does a disservice to Wikipedia. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Non-notable add-ons. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Bagged & tagged. Thanks for the heads-up. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Unwritten Law edit

I disagree with the assertion that a scheduled recording session is not notable, but I agree that without any references it doesn't belong in the article. Just throwing my opinion in here, nothing more. WookMuff (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm just always wary of sentences that are worded "as of <date>", as that indicates the information is likely to change very soon and also is a red flag that the info may not be notable. It would be better to say "Unwritten Law is currently recording a new album" and provide a reference. The citation will give the date that the information was announced or found. Since I didn't know where the info came from, I couldn't cite it. But if you can find a reference then definitly go ahead and re-add it. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Argument

Check this before you start another argument like the Evanescence logo one: WP:BASH. Armando.O ^{talk ● Ev ● 3K} 18:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Those forums/message boards have tons of information about artists on the label Suburban Noize Records.. thats why i posted them up..so i dont see why u deleted them Jride247 (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:EL for guidelines on what kinds of links are and aren't appropriate for Wikipedia. Linking to a band or label's official site is usually fine. Linking to fan forums isn't. Especially if you created the forums yourself and your activity on WP consists mainly of adding links to the forums to all the related band articles, it's pretty clearly spam. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your Recent edit to Streetlight Manifesto

Please check the talk page for the article so we can work this out. --Vazor20X6 (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

{{Alien-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 23:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Aaw he's cute!

Thanks! :-) I'm not sure I'm ready to get involved in another Wiki project at the mo (I'm already involved with three), but I certainly may in the future, and I still would like to see the Xenomorph article get up to GA or FA standard. Serendi^podous 09:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye on...

FYI - A new crufter on the block. 156.34.208.218 (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Hopefully they'll give up. And it'd been so quiet on the logo front lately... --IllaZilla (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Alien

Thanks for the star. I've been watching Aliens special features the past few days and have some notes, so when i can be bothered i'll revamp the page. Good luck with the project. M3tal H3ad (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm pretty much done but the article needs a lot of "polishing". The plot is a tad too long, i probably missed lots of grammar errors, awkward sentences etc. I still got to do the special effects section and I'm not sure about the spin-offs section, i will probably remove it. Any help finding directors that cite the film as an influence would be appreciated, i found one guy who directed The Wizard ]and then there's the Brothers Strause and Anderson of course. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Drive Like Jehu

Thank you for being such a diligent Wikipedia Cop in restoring the factual inaccuracies I have tried to remove from this article. Your dedication to restoring inaccurate and unsourced statements about this band bespeak your iron will – never mind your lack of knowledge of what the words might mean in this case.

I'm going to go ahead and add a section describing Drive Like Jehu as "Synth Pop", because that is precisely as accurate a descriptor for their music as is "complex time signature changes" or "math rock". That ok with you, boss? eshepard —Preceding comment was added at 04:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm is really helpful. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Here it is straight up then - as several of the discussions on this page indicate, it seems apparent that you have a greater interest in controlling Wikipedia entries than improving them. Overriding Rocket From the Crypt's own band manager who tried to contribute factual information to their entry in favor of a bunch of unsourced crap you typed in from a magazine is merely the saddest example of the trail of tears on this page. When someone tries to improve an entry by removing unsubstantiated and provably false statements, please ask yourself whether you are making the same mistake again. eshepard —Preceding comment was added at 17:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, man. I'm a big fan of all the RFTC/Swami-related acts as it appears you are too. I created or rewrote most of the articles relating to them, and I'm working to improve them. To specifically address the RFTC article, I'm in the process of referencing it. The best source I have at the moment (outside of the actual albums, etc) is the magazine article that I'm using as a reference and is pretty thorough. I plan to re-add the "associates" that are listed in that magazine article as I go through and make references, as well as any other associates I find listed in liner notes, etc. As you'll see in the discussion, I took the list of associates out because a number of names were being added to it without any sources to back them up. I can only ask you to bear with me, as that article isn't my primary focus at the moment. I have other projects on Wikipedia and in real life that are more pressing.

I feel I've provided well-reasoned arguments for the changes I've made to articles and have tried to work with other editors to make improvements. Your edit summary for changing the Drive Like Jehu article was "Every song this band recorded was in 4/4, guys. Listen to Breadwinner for yr math rock bonerz." Hardly a civil way to make a point. I'm not the one who put "math rock" and the related bits into the article. Other editors did, and there was a conflict about it, and you can see from my comment a year ago on the talk page that I tried to help find a middle ground. Anyway, the reason I reverted your edits was because your summaries gave the immediate impression that the changes were based on your own personal opinion and elitist music attitude (ie. "Listen to Breadwinner for yr math rock bonerz"). If you want to discuss the content of the DLJ article, then go ahead and use the article's talk page so we can get other editors in on the conversation. Making disparaging comments and trolling my talk page aren't going to help you in your argument. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's amusing be called a troll when my username is "eshepard" (that's Eliot Shepard of Brooklyn, New York) and yours sounds like a short-lived Hanna-Barbera character. I am sorry you found my edit summary on this article about a punk band so deeply offensive, but let me break it down for you: I wasn't calling you a "bonerz", I was suggesting that the excellent and complex rock band Breadwinner might give the reader the polyrhythmic boners they so desperately crave. Drive Like Jehu, while an exhilarating rock combo in their own right, is not likely to inspire such mathy tumescence. As you were, friend. eshepard

I understood the intent, it just seemed very elitist to me. Anyway, I'm not an expert on math rock by any means so I'm willing to just drop the subject. I am a DLJ fan though. My username comes from a song by The Vandals on the albums When in Rome Do as the Vandals and Slippery When Ill. "Mathy tumescence" just lightened my mood considerably. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture

You seem fairly knowledgeable on the whole Alien fandom thing, which I know nothing about, so perhaps you could have a go at expanding the pop culture section of Alien? I don't feel qualified to discuss AvP comic books. If you do it, please include reliable sources. Thanks~ :-) Serendi^podous 17:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm afraid I'm not. I've only played 1 or 2 of the video games, and I think I've only read 1 issue of an Alien comic. I do own the Quadrilogy set and AVP, so I'm knowledgeable on the films, but I don't know much about the expanded universe stuff. I started out working on the film articles and the creature article and ran into so much fancruft and unencyclopedic expanded universe/fan theory garbage that I decided it was high time to launch a project to weed out the crap and get the important articles up to FA. Personally I really don't like pop culture sections, as they either are or quickly turn into huge lists of meaningless trivia. Right now I'm working on merging most of the comic and video game articles which are stubs into list articles. Once those are done we'll have a pretty close estimate as to how many comic series and video games have been made over the years featuring the Aliens, so that's definitely something we could include in the popular culture section to show the creature's influence. I think the section is coming along nicely as prose, though I'd suggest renaming it to something like "influence" or "cultural impact" rather than popular culture, as "pop culture"is bascially synonymous with "trivia" where WP is concerned. Keep up the good work, and I'll add some things into the section once I've got the various stubs sorted out into something informational. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lifeisagrave.jpg

You said "source is the album itself. as an album cover, this is self-explanatory". Yes, this is an image of an album cover, but where did you get this image of an album cover? A website? (what's the URL?) Did you have a copy of the album and scan it in? --Geniac (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

New Years Day external Link

I wasn't attempting to promote my own work as you say, I was asked to provide the link. Would it help resolve the notion of self promotion if we pulled the picture that's already there, that ones mine too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.208.136 (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, there's nothing wrong with the picture you've provided for the article. I'm personally very grateful that you have so many free images that you're willing to share and contribute to Wikipedia. However, providing an external link to your own personal website on the main page of a Wikipedia article is not consistent with Wikipedia's overall purpose or external link guidelines.

If people have asked you to provide a link to more of your photos, the place to do that is on the image description page. In the image description, under "Source", you can put a link to your site (since the site is the source of the photo). That way if readers see your photo, and want to know where it came from, they can click on the image and see the description, where they will see the website as a source and will navigate to it. You can also provide a link on your userpage, so if people see that you are the uploader of the image and want to ask you for more, when they click on your username (or your IP address in this situation) they'll see your userpage with the link on it. So there are a few ways for you to provide the link without putting it in an actual article.

It would help me understand your situation better if you could show me where you were asked to provide the link. I don't see any comments on your talk page or on the image's talk page either at WP or at Commons. Who has been asking you to provide the link? --IllaZilla (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the "source" in the image description and added a link to your gallery, since that is the actual source of the image. (See the change here). I made similar changes to your pictures of the Sparta members. This should resolve the issue. If you have uploaded other images from galleries like this then I suggest you make the similar changes to their image description pages. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Millencolin MP3/video links

Hi,

Could you be specific as to what is wrong with the Millencolin MP3/video links? I see your edit summaries, but I'd like to know exactly what the problem is. Thanks! - Mattingly23 (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Essentially it gets down to WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINK, as well as WP:NFC. Here are some specific points:

• What Wikpedia is not, which is an official policy, states that "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files". In relation to the Millencolin articles, it is fine for the Burning Heart and Epitaph websites to host free mp3 downloads of the band's songs, since the labels partially own the recordings. It is not OK, however, for Wikipedia to mirror those files, as Wikipedia does not have any ownership of the songs in any way. Wikpedia is not a hosting site for copyrighted material. If you want to include music samples in articles, there is a set of guidelines for that at Wikipedia:Music samples which explains how to do so under fair use laws and without violating copyright. Remember, if the material is copyrighted (which songs and music videos certainly are) and is not absolutely essential to an understanding of the article's subject, then the material shouldn't be in the article. Also see WP:NFC#Audio clips.
• The main article on Millencolin already has links to the band's official website, their Myspace, and the Epitaph and Burning Heart websites. These are all officially licensed sites which legally host the band's music and videos. Since Wikipedia is already providing the links to these official sites, it is excessive to then link each individual mp3 file and video within every album article. Again, Wikipedia is not a mirror of links or media files. We can direct readers to one of the band's official sites, where they may be able to view their videos and download their songs. However, the links that were used in the album articles allowed Wikipedia readers to download those media files directly through Wikipedia, which is a blatant violation of copyright. Again, Wikipedia does not have the rights to distribute those files. Only the officially licenced sites have that right. Yes, copyright laws apply even though the band/label is essentially giving the mp3 away for free.

Please take a look at any Featured Article-class album article. I doubt you will find a single one that has mp3 or video file links in them like the ones that were being used in the Millencolin album articles. Those articles have all gone through a peer review process to make sure they are following Wikipedia's policies. Some of them use audio samples or screenshots from videos, but those must meet a strict set of criteria. In a nutshell, it all gets down to copyright laws and Wikpedia's core mission of creating a free encyclopedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what those those links were. They were not mirrors of the songs hosted on Wikipedia, they were direct links to the mp3s hosted by Burning Heart, etc. Linking to media hosted by the copyright owner isn't the same as copying it. I would think that if someone came to Wikipedia looking for information on an album, they would be interested in hearing tracks from the album. How about if I just put a link to the album's page in an external links section? - Mattingly23 (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I realize the files were not being hosted by Wikipedia, but WP still does not have the right to directly link those files for download (which I realized was possible after I right clicked on "Brand New Game" in the Machine 15 article and was able to download it). Album articles generally don't have external links sections. Take a look at at any of the Featured Article-class album articles. It would be OK to link to the Epitaph/Burning Heart album pages if you were using them as references, I guess, but simply linking them in order to give readers access to mp3s and the like seems too promotional. Again, the Epitaph/Burning Heart sites are already linked in the External Links sections of the Millencolin article, so if people are reading about the band and want to know what they sound like, they can use those links. If you would like to use audio samples in the articles, then follow the procedures at WP:NFC#Audio clips and Wikipedia:Music samples. That is something that's done quite often in musical artist and album articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say that Wikipedia doesn't have the right to directly link to those files? If they did not want to allow inline linking, as far as I know it would be trivial to restrict this. What makes linking to a copyrighted audio file different from a copyrighted web page, if they are both being offered by the copyright holder? (Edit: I realized that perhaps users would be confused as to the copyright status of audio files linked directly from a Wikipedia page, so I'm in agreement that it's not the correct way to do this.) I won't argue for seeing the direct links placed back in, but I think the links to the album pages would be helpful. I understand what you are getting at when you say it is too promotional, but I think linking to official sites for music/tv/movies/books could always be construed as promotional even though they offer important information. For example on the Lost (TV series) page, they include a link to Official ABC streaming video site, where you can watch every episode of Lost for free. I feel that including the Burning Heart pages in the External Links sections of the albums would serve the same purpose. Perhaps none of the featured album articles have content freely available? This may not be something that has a precedent. - Mattingly23 (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bouvet Island

I reverted it to "Bouvetoya, an island about one thousand miles north of Antarctica." Will that do? Jonas Poole (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. It's a bit difficult to explain because both the island's location and ownership are fictionalized in the movie. They call it "Bouvetøya island" which I understand is redundant because the suffix "-øya" means "island" in Norwegian, so "Bouvetøya" means "Bouvet island". I don't remember exactly where they say it is located in the movie, but they say it lies within the boundaries of Antarctica and is therefore subject to the Antarctic Treaty, so no country has a claim on it. Of course, the real Bouvet island is actually subantarctic, since it is over 1,000 miles from the nearest Antarctic island, and is in fact not subject to the Antarctic treaty, which is why it is a dependent area of Norway. In the film the satellite zooms in on an island fairly close to the Antarctic continent, clearly not 1,000 miles away from it. So it appears they fictionalized the location and ownership of Bouvetøya to suit the story they wanted to tell. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I own the movie. Its something I like to yell at every once in a while. The fact they put a whaling station there before any were established in the subantarctic (the first was on South Georgia in November 1904) bothers the hell out of me. I know its just a movie, but those things get to me. And they couldn't get a single Norwegian to tell them the name means "Bouvet Island"? Jeeze. Jonas Poole (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I'm a big fan of Alien and Predator movies, so that gives me more reasons to yell at it. Jonas Poole (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Scores

Hi Im about to create a page for Goldsmiths (awesome) score for Alien, Ive just finished Horners Aliens and I did one for Goldenthals Alien 3 ages ago (because i focus mainly on his stuff, massive fan), just thought id tell you since theres a wikiproject related to the series. also someone else has created a page for the Resurrection score already, i have included the soundtrack chronology into all the score pages naturaly. Good work you guys are doing! :) Terrasidius (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I dont know what happened but i think someones deleted the page a i did for Aliens by Horner. looking into it now, although the one i did for Alien is still up. Terrasidius (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Quality hasn't lost out yet has it?

And I am guessing this is still the non-preferred use of this cruft? Main article w. notability or bye-bye was the consensus. Hopefully that hasn't changed and 'encyclopedia' loses out to 'fansite'. It's been a long fought battle to lose the useless decorations like flags and logos from the boxes and make them look less like a fan page and more like 'encyclo-quality'. Hope that swing doesn't go the other way. 156.34.236.222 (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm glad to notice that there's been a sharp decline in the amount of logo-cruft I've come across lately, but still need to keep a watchful eye. I've been working on non-music related projects of late, though, so my attention from this issue has turned a bit. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there already a consensus on this? Some people want to turn Wikipedia into a junior High School book report??? 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Cat:Alien

Hi again IllaZilla - I've nominated Category:Alien at WP:CFD, suggesting a rename/merger of it and Category:Alien (film series) into a new Category:Alien (entertainment franchise). Hopefully that'll get round both the problems of perceived scope (i.e., not just the films) and the potential ambiguity (i.e., not for "real aliens"). If you wish to propose a better name, or make some comments, then do so there. Once something is decided about that permanent category's name, we'll have more of a handle on what to do with the stub type at WP:SFD. Grutness...wha? 06:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

RE:vote

I accept your appology and offer mine as well. I came off harsh, which I try to avoid. Lets just agree to disagree. Undeath (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. Best wishes. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And speaking of templates...

Just wondering. There are so many disagreements on the musician infobox.... there was actually an agreement on one subject and yet, for some reason, the guideline was never updated. Kameejl identified that when landcaped images are used... and the 'landscape=yes' field is populated... for some images/boxes... the width was WAY too big... and for that reason the size should be limited to 250 for this field IF a landscaped image is used. I agreed with it... no one ever disagreed with it. And yet the guideline was never updated to add that little gem to instruct on neat/proper format for landscapes. The discussion was archived by a logo pusher who didn't want any other discussion distracting their favourite topic. So its been forgotten. Do you think you could follow up on it to get it in there. It would be a shame to see a simple proposal that no one whined and cried about go forgotten. Thanks and have a nice day. Libs 156.34.222.121 (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look for it and re-raise the topic. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

um..

Sorry about that stuff I said back in February. I was just pissed. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Accepted. It was a heated subject (still is) and I said some things myself during the course of the logo debate that I realize could have been friendlier. Apologies if anything I said offended you, as well. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Aquabats Past Members

IllaZilla:

I completely understand your decision to remove those band members which I added, and focus on the album members. However, one exception that I believe should be made was my addition of Popeye (Michael Vogelsang, I believe his name was). My reasoning for this is that he was in the "Fashion Zombies" music video, and was a significant part of their tour shortly thereafter.

With this in mind, are you swayed at all?

--Fighter Kyu (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? I don't recall him from the video but I admit I only watched it once or twice. Is that info verifiable? Ie. is there a reference for it? If there is a reliable source then I have no problem with his name being included (ideally with his real name as well, if there's also a reference for that), and he could be added to the lineups table as well since that would represent a different touring lineup post-Charge!! and pre-Eagle "Bones" Falconhawk. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Logo cats

Ok, sure, I'll use those cats in future; thanks for the message. J Milburn (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried just removing them again, thinking the other user[s] may see sense when someone else agrees with you. I was just straight out reverted, citing WP:LOGO, which is rather liberally tagged as a guideline. In any case, I left the Cyrus XIII a message, hopefully he will see sense. J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed, I was actually considering mentioning it to you. I'll talk to Scarian about it. J Milburn (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Scarian's answers seem to be pretty accurate and Navnløs' argument seems to fall down to that he doesn't like the non-free content criteria. I don't think that's anything to worry about; I have chatted to Scarian a little in the past, and he's a nice guy and knows his stuff. At the end of the day, album images in discography listings are dying out; anyone fighting to keep them is fighting a losing battle. J Milburn (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

speedy

Please see WP:CSD. Fictional characters can not be speedied as non-notable. There is a specific provision to that effect in CSD A7. You need to use PROD or AFD. For a main character in Alien, PROD won't work, Because anyone can remove the tag and someone surely will, so try Afd. If people agree with your argument, it will be deleted. DGG (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

and for any speedy you must leave an edit summary saying that its being nominated for speedy, and similarly for PROD. And though not required strictly, it is considered polite to notify the author or principle recent authors--whether its speedy, prod , or nomination for AfD. DGG (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Helper

Hi, I am the one who created the Alien and Predator timeline and I am very intrested in helping you to get the Alien wikiproject going. Some things on it need to be brougt up to date and thats what I can help with. The project also needs more members and all.

Also, I have been working to improve the Aliens vs. Predator (novel series) and other AvP novel related articles. The new image I put there is going to be deleted due to copyright laws, but I was wondering how I can get it to not be deleted. The other people told me to improve it and all but I don't understand how. Thank you for your time and if you would like I can add you to my userpage's friends/helpers section. --Tj999 (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your interest. Even though we disagreed on the AfD for the timeline, I'm glad you want to help get Alien articles up to date. As for getting more members, one way to do that is to have a look at the "Templates" section of the project: there are 2 templates there you can add to the talk pages of editors whom you've noticed editing Alien-related articles. They have a welcome message and an invitation to join the project. Use {{subst:Alienwelcome}} for editors who look like they're new to Wikipedia, and {{subst:Alienwelcome-E}} for more experienced editors. For other tasks that need doing please check the "Things to do" section of the project, and feel free to add things to the worklist there that you think need attention. That way I and other project members will be alerted and we can all coordinate our efforts.

As for the novel series article, we can probably take some tips from WikiProject Novels on this one. They have a lot of good tips on how to get novel articles up to GA class. I also noticed that you created an article on the main character from the series. I'm going to recommend for that article to be merged into the novel series article, because the character doesn't have any notability beyond the series, and plot summaries in the novel series article will tell us everything about her. As for the article itself and the cover images: I'd recommend dividing the article into individual sections on each novel. Start it off with an overview of the series as a whole: its inspirations, info about the author & publisher, etc. Then do a separate section for each book, with a separate infobox in each section. The infobox will have the publishing details, etc. and then you can do a brief plot summary for each book. Then after those sections you can do a "Reception" section or something where you discuss how the book was received, give some critics' opinions, etc. Remember it's always important to have secondary sources in an article, not only to establish notability of the subject but also to really give context to the topic. Anyway, I think there are probably 2 reasons why the image you created has been marked for deletion: 1) The fair use rationale on the image description page isn't filled-out in full, and 2) It's a composite image made of 3 copyrighted covers. Wikipedians normally don't like when people create composite non-free images, as each image is technically supposed to have its own separate fair use rationale. Dividing the article up a bit, with a separate infobox for each novel, might solve this issue because each cover image will be used separately. Just make sure you fill the fair-use rationale templates out in full. I'll take a look at it later today if I have time and see if I can help out with that. I've had a fair bit of experience with fair-use image issues. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will not be able to start all this stuff until maybe tonight or tomorrow but I can't wait to help make these novels a little bit more known to people. I just bought them all and I am so far reading the second one. Thanks again, and I will be adding your name to my userpage's helper section. If you don't want your name there you can just contact me. Thanks again. --Tj999 (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

UPDATED; I added the plot stuff the the AvP (novel series) page. Check it out, thanks! --Tj999 (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Album images

I think you are getting a little draconian about the removals. Album images may generally only be used in articles relating to the albums themselves, yes, but can be used in the artist's pages (and, I suppose, record label, designer, genre articles too) when there is specific critical commentary relating to the cover/album art. Check a few featured articles for examples- the artist articles actually sometimes discuss the covers more than the album articles. Are you reading the articles that you are removing the covers from, or are you just removing them? My concern was raised when I noticed you removed an image from Celestiial, which I wrote. J Milburn (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, wait, I've just realised you were right. The cover isn't explicitly mentioned in the article, I thought it was. Wrote it quite a while ago then pretty much left it... J Milburn (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You caught that one as I was typing my reply. My reason for removing album covers from artist articles comes from a number of past discussions at places like WikiProject Musicians and NRCC/NFC. Sorry I can't reference a specific discussion, but they were a while ago. Anyway, It basically gets down to NFCC policy 3, "minimal use": "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." So if there's a separate article about the album, and that article uses the cover image, then is it necessary to also have it in the artist article? This reduces the number of uses "in Wikipedia as a whole". I would of course be more hesitant if there were some referenced discussion of the artwork or something along those lines, and would probably just recommend that discussion be moved to the album article. But that hasn't been the case in any of the uses I've come across so far. I've also removed a lot of cover images from discography sections of artist articles, because those are specifically prohibited as they are lists/galleries. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Psychobilly stylistic origins

What do you think of my suggestion for the changes to the stylistic origins on the talk page? Munci (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Priest

How, exactly, does the use of the Ripper Owens cross fail the criteria of non-free use? Simply spewing acronyms isn't an explanation. Howa0082 (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I explained it in my edit summary: There is no commentary in the article body about the significance of the logo, nor any references to support it. There has been a lot of discussion about logos in musical artist articles lately (mainly at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist) and the general consensus amongst most editors & admins there is that a non-free logo should be accompanied by some sort of referenced commentary, otherwise it fails fair use criteria. I'm aware that WP:LOGO has less stringent criteria for the use of logo images, but it is geared primarily towards corporate and team logos. Their use is not the same as the use of a band logo, for a variety of reasons (the main one being that companies & teams are non-corporeal entities & their logos serve as their primary means of identification, whereas a band is a group of people you can take a picture of, so a logo in that case is at best a secondary form of identification). To be specific about WP:NFCC, it says a couple of important things, maily criterion 5 & 8:

• 5. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic.

• 8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

As I said in my edit summary, there is no sourced commentary anywhere in the article about the band's logos. Without any referenced commentary it does not appear that using the logo adds any encyclopedic info to the article, nor that it increases a reader's understanding of Judas Priest. It appeared next to a paragraph that said absolutely nothing about the logo, so it gave the impression that its use was mostly decorative. Such a use is not in line with the letter or spirit of NFCC. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Weyland-Yutani

Hi Zilla,

I just wanted you to know that my recent deletion of a comment on the Weyland-Yutani discussion was actually justified. You see, the comment in question stated that the fictional company Weyland-Yutani, featured in the Alien and Alien vs Predator series, was bought out by Wal-Mart, the real-life chain of deparment stores. The ip-address of the editor leads to a school community. Needless to say, its comment was a joke. Kind regards, --Soetermans (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it isn't a joke. In the special edition of Alien Resurrection, when Ripley tells the military guys that "She'll breed. You'll die. Everyone in the company will die", they ask "what company?". General Perez interjects: "Weyland-Yutani, Ripley's former employer." They remark that W-Y hasn't existed for many years, and Dr. Wren remarks that it was "bought out by Wal-Mart." So the comment wasn't a joke, it's from actual dialog in the film. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not know that! Actually, I've been trying to get my hands on the SE edition for a while now, but no luck so far... Anyway, sorry for the inconvenience. --Soetermans (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What a lame joke, by the way. No wonder they cut it out. --Soetermans (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about my AVP-R trivia thing. I just thought it was a cool coincidence that that part of the movie was just like predator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.130.128 (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

year in film

When I added the year in film for Alien: Resurrection you wrote "more transparent link. piped links to "year in ____" are to be avoided when linking specific dates.". It's not that I doubt you, but I'd like to see where it says this policy is supposed to be followed, because I've made that edit to a lot of film articles and am ready to accept my mistake. MwNNrules (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall offhand where it's mentioned, but it's a style guideline that's been generally adopted by many Wikiprojects. The films wikiproject has some style guidelines but doesn't say anything about this, though the albums wikiproject specifically mentions it. Generally it's just a good idea to make links as transparent as possible to the reader. WP:DATE gives a couple of guidelines:

Links to date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month are not required; for example, solitary months, solitary days of the week, solitary years, decades, centuries, and month and year combinations. Such links must not be used unless the reader needs to follow the link to understand the topic; see WP:CONTEXT. Autoformatting must not be used for the following purposes:

• piped links to date elements ([[20 June|20]], [[20 June]] [[1997 in South African sport|1997]]) (several forms of piped links break the date formatting function)

The general Wikipedia practice is to only link specific dates; that is, day-month-year, since it will take the reader directly to the article about that date. Using a piped link to redirect readers to a "<date> in ____" article is somewhat misleading. Someone clicking on 1997 expects to go to the article about 1997, not 1997 in film. It's OK to add the "in film" links into the articles, but doing it as "(see 1997 in film)" makes the context clear to the reader and lets them know exactly what article they will be seeing when they click on it. It's important to consider context in situations like this. Piped links are certainly useful, but when reasonably possible we should avoid them in favor of transparency. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. I haven't looked through a lot of the wikipedia manuals, but when I've done something wrong, I like to correct my mistakes. I was going around doing that to any article which didn't have the piped link to a) raise awareness about the piped links and b) raise my edit count (sad, but true). When I saw that Alien and Aliens contained the pipe links, I though it was appropriate to add it into the latter two films. I'll get rid of those. I'll also get to looking back on your provided links sometime this week. By the way, the Alien Wikiproject is really cool, and surprisingly active. MwNNrules (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Killer

Thanks for your support.

Nufy8 was unable to revert because he feared a wheel war, which I fully sympathise with.

Upon due consideration, I couldn't see why I was not entitled to the editprotected request via another admin, hence I posted it.

That last thing I want to do is to disrupt WP with meaningless arguments, but I also strongly believe in WP:NOTCENSORED and will fight censorship to the hilt.

I would march the streets with placards to defend your right to call me wrong.

Again, many thanks.

--  Chzz  ►  02:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC) ^{hopes he doesn't sound like a total nutter}

P.S. I would also imagine you would be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 9, but farbeit from me to suggest you might vote.

Your justifications on the deletion review were superb. Erudite, clear and suprisingly NPOV. Great stuff. This is a pointless posting, other than to say - wow, you've significantly increased my faith in humanity --  Chzz  ►  04:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Here's hoping clearer heads prevail, ours included! --IllaZilla (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

We can but hope. I have raised the issue of the protected page haing the image second, and justified my reasoning for a revert (in the good of the WP, to prevent it from appearing to bow to external pressures), however, several admins have been reluctant to agree to the revert request - not wishing to stick their heads above the turret. The next level is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Virgin_Killer

--  Chzz  ►  05:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the multiple IfDs, the RfC, and the numerous discussions taking place in various places and growing longer every hour, I think that's the logical (and reasonable) next step. If no admins have responded to the RfC, then it must be taken to the noticeboard. Any controversy which results in full protection, I think, ought to be brought up before at least a couple of admins. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

.unintent.You may wish to contribute to Talk:Virgin_Killer#Unprotect --  Chzz  ►  01:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Killer is Hardkore

Me thinks WND jumping on it like that seems alot like how Fox 11 distorted Anonymous, now that was hilarious ViperSnake151 20:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Totally. Given that it was a WND article that seemingly started this whole debacle, seeing a follow-up article in which they ranked it in their list of "hardcore" pornographic depictions made me laugh aloud but also really got my blood boiling. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Alien vs Predator Requiem

FYI - you may be interested in the group of blocks I made earlier. Best, Black Kite 00:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. You were busy today! --IllaZilla (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For all the Alien and Predator pages...

I'm glad that all these nonsense pages are going to be deleted. I don't even consider them articles. As for the not-so-dedicated work I've put into them, it was a necessary sacrifice. Also some of them that state they should be moved into Aliens (film), such as characters, shouldn't they be merged to the list of characters page? Actually, I think I just answered my own question. I've pretty much come to say thank you for the work you've put into Alien and Predator stuff. It's a fact you've done a lot more than most. LordJesseD (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. In truth I feared a backlash, and I didn't want to seemingly invalidate the good work you've put into these articles in the last few months. But after some careful reviewing I determined that everything in them that was in any way encyclopedic in value was already in Aliens (film) and List of characters in the Alien series. Therefore I figured, "the important info is already essentially merged...time to chop the dead wood". --IllaZilla (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

however, the redirects from the character names remai necessary and appropriate. If you insist on tryingto remove them, takethem to RfD, but dont use speedy -- Speedy rationales such as "it was created solely as a redirect page, and no articles link to it. It has no useful page history or purpose other than for a reader who does a search for the fictional character Carter Burke, but the character itself has does not appear outiside the film [[Aliens (film)|Aliens]] and a reader is far more likely to search for the film title rather than the name of an obscure fictional character. Therefore a redirect for this character, simply for the sake of having one, is unnecessary" are not among the reasons at WP:CSD. DGG (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head. By the way, in Alien Resurrection, you wouldn't happen to know the type of gloves Elgyn is wearing? At about 42:26 (in my PAL edition), there's a good shot of them, and out of the short search I've done I've come up with nothing. LordJesseD (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea. I don't even recall any special gloves, but if I watch the film again anytime soon I'll keep an eye out for them. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

I awarded you a barnstar for your The Offspring Greatest Hits article work. I know it is only one article and a fairly small one at that, but as a massive fan of The Offspring, it was pleasing to see the article improved in such a professional way, especially as much of the edits you did must have been quite tedious. As the barnstar description says, it is just to let you know your work is 'seen and appreciated'.--The Skeleton (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Happy to contribute! :) --IllaZilla (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Onboard

Please do not revert my corrections of spelling errors. Wiktionary is not a reliable reference (any dope can change it to reflect his or her own level of illiteracy). 'On board' is a prepositional phrase, while 'onboard' is an adjective. Chris the speller (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and in all the instances you changed it was being used as an adjective ie. "x and y are onboard the spaceship". --IllaZilla (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To help you understand what a prepositional phrase is, please see: [1]. 'Onboard' is an adjective, and an example of its use is: "They will try to repair the onboard computer." 'Onboard' modifies the noun 'computer'. In your example, 'onboard' does not modify 'spaceship', so it should be the prepositional phrase 'on board' to tell WHERE 'x and y' are. Chris the speller (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to jump in in the middle of a dispute, but after watching this go back and forth on my watchlist, and thinking about it (you all made me diagram the sentence in my head, darn you both! ;D), I have to agree with Chris - in these cases, "on board" as two words as a prepositional phrase is the correct usage, rather than "onboard" as an adjective, for the reasons Chris specified above. Anyway, wishing you the best, Umrguy42 (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hold your horses please...

Please do not delete links to articles that "are going to be deleted". While it looks quite likely that many of the AfD nominated Aliens articles will go, redirecting away from them while an AfD is still ongoing is not the way to do it - and might be considered to be bad faith bad form. Regards. Ingolfson (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for hinting at bad faith. You are doing what you consider sensible for Wikipedia, and while I disagree with the particulars, I shouldn't have said that. Ingolfson (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken. Though I agree that I am doing what I think is sensible, I did fear that removing the links before the AfD closed might upset some folks, and you're right that it was borderline inappropriate to do it while the AfD was ongoing. The main reason I did it was to see how many articles these things linked to other than through the template. Since they were in the template, the "what links here" page would show every article that used the template, and doesn't distinguish between template links and normal internal links. So I had to cut them from the template in order to get an idea of how many other articles linked to these, which was a topic of discussion in the AfD. Your criticism is completely valid, though, and I apologize for the upset. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Irony of ironies, if you HAD done it properly, and kept the links until after the AfD had (as it would have) deleted the article, I would have never gotten to save the Sulaco (spaceship) article - because I wasn't watchlisting the Sulaco, simply the starship article where you removed the link. But that got me in a fighting mood ;-) Cheers and happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Drive Like Jehu Post-Punk?

I'm sorry if I had done that edit in such an agressive way, but I've heard Drive Like Jehu and can't really see the similarities between bands like Wire, PiL, JD, Gang of Four, Cabaret Voltaire and many others with the post-hardcore of Drive Like Jehu. Of course they are experimental and I think they are even more post-hardcore in respects to other bands like The Fall of Troy or Glassjaw. But I personally don't think they could classify as post-punk and even AMG calls them solely as post-hardcore. I hope we can keep discussing so we can get to an agreement. Cheers. 190.60.93.222 (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it wasn't so much the edit itself I objected to as the tone of your edit summary, making it seem like the edit was based solely on your opinion rather than a valid reason/criticism. Since the article is completely unreferenced, there really aren't any sources to support what genres the band might belong to that are mentioned. So if you want to remove "post-punk" from the list again I won't object. If AMG lists them as post-hardcore then that's something we should add as a reference to the article. The article as a whole really needs some good sourcing. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Difference between the dog in the theatrical version and the ox in the special edition

There is a slight difference between the 1992 theatrical version of Alien 3 and the 2003 special edition. Don't you think so? The difference is like this: The scene where the dog goes into convulsions and the xenomorph bursts out from its chest really made me sick. That's why I didn't like that scene one bit. The scene where the xenomorph bursts out from the dead body of the ox is my favorite. I liked that scene better. But could you please make sure you know the difference? Please let me know. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's way more than a "slight" difference. I thought I explained the difference quite clearly in my edit summary, in the article, and on the article's talk page. I own the Alien Quadrilogy set, which has both versions of the film, and I have watched them both as well as the commentaries and the "making of" features more than once. There are several differences between the 1992 theatrical version and the 2003 special edition. Here are a few of the major ones:

1992 theatrical version	2003 special edition
The Alien gestates in and bursts out of a dog.	The Alien gestates in and bursts out of an ox.
After the scene in which the prisoners accidentally start a fire while trying to set a trap for the Alien, the film cuts straight to another scene entirely. They don't succeed in trapping the Alien.	During the chaos of the fire the prisoners succeed in trapping the Alien in a room with steel walls. A deranged Golic later releases it.
In the climax, after the Bishop II character gets hit in the head, he doesn't have any more dialogue. He watches from the catwalk as Ripley throws herself into the furnace.	After getting hit in the head, Bishop II bleeds profusely and yells to Ripley several times "I'm not a droid!"
As Ripley falls into the furnace, the Alien queen chestburster busts out of her and she grabs hold of it, taking it into the fire with her.	There is no chestburster. Ripley simply falls backward into the fire, arms outstretched.

These are just a few of the biggest differences. Yes the dog scene is a bit gruesome as it involves the suffering and death of an animal, vs. the ox version where the ox was already dead, but that's how they made the film and the plot summary in the article should reflect the original, theatrical version, even if you prefer the later version of the film. I'm sure no animals were actually harmed in making the movie. Trust me, I know the differences between the two versions, particularly which animal the Alien comes from, and I'm sure any other editors at Talk:Alien 3 will back me up. The differences are also well-explained in the article in the section Alien 3#Special Edition DVD. I suggest that you rent the DVD that has both versions of the film, check out the differences, and watch the special features. It's actually pretty interesting to learn why they did things one way in the original version, and why they went back and changed them for the special edition 11 years later. There is a whole story behind the troubled production of Alien 3 that could be better explained in the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Aliens

Hey I'd just like to thank you for your help with Aliens. I know it was a few months ago but better late than never, (right? :]). I got bored of wiki and have been busy which explains my absence. Anyway, I'll continue to work on the articles to hopefully get FA status and thanks for maintaining them while i been gone. Cya around M3tal H3ad (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I was wondering where you'd been :) I was pretty busy off-wiki myself for a couple of months. As far as Alien projects, right now I'm involved in this AfD and this DRV. I'm also working on improving the production sections of Alien (film) using many of the featurettes from the Quadrilogy set. That project I'm doing in my sandbox. Good to have you back! --IllaZilla (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, where are the Aliens characters to be merged? The film or list of characters. Ultra! 09:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say any useful information about casting, etc. should go to the film article, while any other stuff that's just plot summary should go to the list of characters (especially anything that goes beyond just Aliens...there's some stuff in the Hicks & Newt articles that comes from the comics). The film article doesn't need any more plot summary, it has plenty in the plot & cast sections. Thanks for your great work on this; those merge proposals were sitting idle for too long. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Alien stubs

Hi - in an attempt to get some form of resolution on the Alien stubs SFD, I've made a new proposal at Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2008/February/25#.7B.7BAlien-stub.7D.7D_.2F_Cat:Alien_stubs which you might be interested in looking at. Grutness...wha? 09:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Note

Do you find trying to keep getting an article deleted in repeated nominations "petulant whining on the part of those who did not get their way"? In those discussions, you don't see yourself repeating the same things ad nauseum as well? It is "ridiculous" that when editors do in fact offer ideas of sourcing (such primary sources as the dates provided in text in Aliens and such secondary sources as reviews of the films) a handful of editors would be bent on denying their colleauges further chances to improve the article under question. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not the nominator in either AfD. I merely offered my arguments, backed up by relevant policies. That I had to repeat and rephrase them so many times is, I think, a function of you having done the same. It's a vicious cycle that's getting neither of us anywhere. I'm doing my own investigating into the primary sources to see if I can shed light on the verifiability issue. But as you can no doubt guess from my previous comments I don't believe that primary sources alone, even if they verify the info, are enough to support a stand-alone article because WP policies require that secondary sources be used to establish notability and real-world context (a policy I believe in and stand by because I share that belief; otherwise there is nothing standing in the way of WP becoming an indiscriminate collection of info). I have not seen anyone, yourself included, provide any reliable third-party sources to show why the timeline of events in these films is notable enough to merit a separate article on the subject. And I do consider comments like this to be "petulant whining", especially when they mirror other comments which seem to say "my opinion didn't win out, therefore my opinions (and the opinions of those who agree with me) obviously weren't counted." Apparently, "keep" !votes carry more weight than "delete" ones, and a close of delete means the "keep" !votes were entirely ignored? That is a ridiculous notion. I realize those comments were not yours, and I should therefore point out that the charge of "petulant whining" was not levelled specifically at you. I actually do appreciate the cordiality with which you present your arguments, most of the time. This is not a case of a "handful of editors" bent on denying others a chance at improving the article. There have been somewhere close to 20 editors between those 2 AfDs and the current DRV who believe, with solid arguments to support their opinions, that the article has basic, insurmountable problems and should be deleted. There have been plenty of opportunities offered for other editors to improve the article. I would think that the first AfD closing as no consensus was a clear indicator that improvements needed to be made, and tags were placed to that effect. In the 2 and a half months since then none of the concerns from the AfD have been addressed. Heck, I even tried to improve it but was unable to solve any of its root problems.

I apologize if I sounded volatile or accusing in my comment at the DRV, but I get extremely incensed when I see fellow editors I respect throwing up their hands in defeat and frustration simply because they are being barraged with repetitive arguments which they have refuted many times with sound logic and good faith. I have to admit I've had similar frustrations with many of your arguments and your methods of presenting them. For example, on at least 2 occasions in the last week you've simply copied my comments, changed "is" to "isn't", "does" to "doesn't" or vice-versa in order to make it say the exact opposite, then posted that as your reply (see [2], [3]). Wouldn't you find that frustrating? You repeatedly, almost incessantly, throw out the same generalizations over and over as your rationales, and they only get less and less convincing. I'm apparently not the only one who thinks so, nor the only one frustrated and exhausted by your repetition, to the point where Black Kite removed himself from the discussion for fear of saying something inflammatory. Repeating the same opinions over and over is a behavior which, I'm ashamed to say, I have become guilty of in large part due to our disagreements in these AfDs: You keep throwing the same arguments at me, I keep feeling the need to rebut; The cycle repeats itself ad nauseum and can be reduced to our fundamental disagreements on a few basic issues (ie. the concept of inherited notability). It's a behavior I'm growing more and more ashamed of, as it begins to feel more and more like I'm letting myself be baited by heckles; yet at the same time I, like you, cannot seem to bow out of a discussion when I see such obvious fundamental flaws in the opposing arguments. I propose that we simply agree to disagree and let other editors finish this DRV out without our interference, since we can't seem to stay away from refuting one another at each opportunity. I'll keep going through the films to see if I can better address the article's verifiability questions, and you can do whatever you feel is helpful to improve the article to a point where we hopefully won't need any more of these AfDs/DRVs. Happy editing. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If the article were unprotected, I would actually add some new sources to it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that is confusing. The article is not protected, and never has been according to its history. It was deleted for about 12 hours but was then restored, as you well know, so I'm not sure why we're unable to edit it at the moment. Perhaps you could ask Black Kite to review his restoration of the article and make sure it was properly applied so that it was still editable. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone did protect it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That is odd. I was confused because the current banner on the article says "While the review is in progress, you are welcome to edit the article", so it seemed to me like it wasn't protected. I think it's an error and I've posted a comment at the DRV to see if another admin can fix it. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked the protecting admin directly, but I don't think he has responded yet. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Images of the Alien

Do you think a swimming Alien needs a pic? I don't unless that Alien is different from the previous films. Ultra! 19:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your call. I'm usually pretty conservative with non-free images, as I interpret WP:NFCC pretty strictly. If you don't think it's necessary, go ahead and pull it. My litmus test is usually: Is there prose nearby the image explaining the subject? Does the image serve to illustrate the prose in some essential way (ie. would it be difficult to understand what was being described without having the image there to illustrate it)? If not, toss it. When I went through the Alien article I just pulled the ones that struck me as most obviously excessive; I didn't pay too much attention to the rest. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But is it different from previous aliens? Ultra! 09:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes it is. Check out Alien Resurrection#Creatures. The major change was that they lengthened the tail and gave it sort of a raised dorsal ridge and a spike at the end. The idea was that this would make their swimming more convincing, as they propelled themselves by moving their tail back & forth like a crocodile does. These changes carried over to AVP, which you can see in this image. For Resurrection they also changed its fingers, legs and feet, making its joints and leg movement more quadrupedal (similar to the way the raptors legs move in Jurassic Park)...see here. Oh, and they added the ability to spit acid. So yeah, the Resurrection Aliens had a lot of differences. To show the changes from film to film, here are some replicas:

• Alien: [4] [5] - note the smooth cowl, pointed tail, fingers, and how the joints/feet are human-looking (since for most of the film it was played by a guy in a suit).
• Aliens: [6] - note longer fingers and ridges on the cowl. Also the weird handle-like things sticking out of the forearms.
• Alien 3: [7] [8] - the "runner" design. Note the lack of tubes on the back, thinner limbs, spike on the tail, and overall smaller size of the creature (you can't really tell the size from the models but you can see it in the film when it's in frame with humans). The cowl is smooth again and not as long as in the previous 2 films. Many of these changes were explained by the Alien having gestated in a dog rather than a human.
• Alien Resurrection: [9] [10] - tubes on the back are back, creature is big again compared to humans. Tail has the finlike ridge on it for the swimming scene and is longer with a big spike on the end. Legs & feet are completely redesigned: There's no way this could be a guy in a suit because human legs don't bend that way. They used completely CGI'd Aliens in several scenes so they went with a leg design similar to the Jurassic Park predatory dinosaurs.
• AVP: [11] [12] - Hands & fingers are a little different. Legs are more like the Alien/Aliens design with joints like a human's, though the feet still look like the ones in Resurrection. A few other cosmetic differences in areas like the ribcage, hips, etc.
• AVP:R: [13] - This one looks a lot more like the ones in Aliens with the ridged head & all, but the tail still looks like it did in Resurrection/AVP. Also no handle thingies on the forearms like there were in Aliens.

So yeah, there are design changes in every film. But does the image show these changes? Do we really need it? That's your call. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I Need your help please

I found an image in Flickr as you tlad me to look over there, but now i need the right lisence to upload it, help me with that because I'm not tht used to be uploading images and putting the right lisence you know. Please tell me how to do it right.-- Rockk3r Spit it Out! 19:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to give you a tutorial on your talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Wooooww you got me impressed, I never thought some one could help me that much I really appreciate it. Well I found a picture, but as you said doesn't have that right lisence so I wanted to send a message to the author, but I couldn't find his adress. Yould told me on the tutorial that I could find it there, but I couldn't, I so sorry I keep bothering you, but I promise that as soon as I know how to do tthat you won't have to worry about me again. Well thatnks in advance and for what you already did for me. Thanks -- Rockk3r Spit it Out! 17:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Alien game talk pages

why are you putting the following at the talk pages of redirects of Alien and predator games:

"The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page"

now I think that you're only supposed to put that for discussions in which a consensus was a reached, not place em at every talk page you see. Plus stop removing the archive talk section from the main Alien and Predator game list. Gman124 ^talk 03:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, wrong template. I'll fix it. But the point is that the archives of those articles don't belong on the talk page of the list article; they belong on the talk pages of the redirects. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

talk pages of redirects are hard to find, there is no reason to keep it that way, so it would actually be helpful if you leave those of the List page. no one really goes into an redirect page and then go to it's talk page. plus is there really a guideline for archive talk pages of redirects. --Gman124 ^talk 04:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is, I'm not aware of it. I just found the proper template for archiving the redirect talk pages, so I'm going to apply those. It won't affect anything except notifying readers that the discussions are concluded, since the articles are now redirects. It was my mistake using the wrong template earlier; I was copying it from another article which was also using it improperly. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

UD4L Cheyenne "archiving" of a single comment (and a header)

Hi,

What exactly is the point of this? To my knowledge, there is no need to go sticking archive templates over old talk material unless it's likely to confuse people who are viewing the talk page. Your edit summary wasn't exactly conductive to explaining it either. if there isn't a good reason, I plan on restoring the previous version. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. From reading the talk section above this, I see that this is some sort of attempt to isolate discussion of articles which have been merged. In future, please use edit summaries which actually help editors to understand your rationale. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, it might have helped if you'd done the same or if you'd read my previous edit summary immediately preceding yours in which I stated I was archiving the page. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, true. Sorry about that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Bring On vs Bring on

You've recently moved Bring On the Dancing Horses to Bring on the Dancing Horses stating the manual of style for song titles. However, WP:MUSTARD states: Capitalize only those prepositions that are the first or last word of the title, or are part of a two-word phrasal verb (e.g., "Walk On" or "Give Up the Ghost"). "Bring on" is a two-word phrasal verb which means that "on" should have a capital. --JD554 (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

preds

Well, this has been suggested and shot down repeatedly. I got rid of the notice because I though it had been re-added by mistake.--Marhawkman (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I found the discussion on the Pred article talk. It seems to have not reached a conclusion except that the language article was crap. It also hasn't been continued in 3 months.--Marhawkman (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right you were one of the main proponents..... anyways, So what was (in a nutshel) your reason for wanting to merge them again? I don't feel like rereading the 3-4 pages of stuff again.--Marhawkman (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell, the subject of "gizmos used by the Predators" hasn't received enough independent source coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. If I recall, your main reason for wanting to keep the article split was that it made the main article too long, but this isn't really a good reason. WP:AVOIDSPLIT cautions that we shouldn't split off topics that aren't independently notable and don't have supporting secondary sources: "Instead, editors should fully develop the main article first, locating sources of real-world coverage that apply both to the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability and can be split off into their own article." If the main article is too long, we can split off sections that are referenced to third-party sources, as those seem to have notability in and of themselves. The "Predator technology" article, however, doesn't have any secondary sources and I highly doubt that any exist (keep in mind that the films themselves, behind-the-scenes featurettes, and tie-in works like comics and guides are primary sources...secondary sources come from third-party authors unconnected to the subject; see WP:PSTS). All the technology article does is synthesize primary source material, making it merely plot summary in a different form and bordering on original research. There aren't special rules for "subarticles"; RS, WAF, and FICT all assert that reliable secondary sources are necessary for a subject to merit an article on Wikipedia. I think FICT really puts it best:

If you took the technology article and removed most of the plot summary and extraneous detail, you'd be left with 1 or 2 solid paragraphs that would go really well in the Predator article. It should focus on the real-world aspects, such as the writing, design, and prop creation. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Does the fact that Predators are never seen without their "gizmos" count? Regardless of what they're being spoofed, parodied, or otherwise mentioned in they're always seen with an assortment of their weapons, armor, etc..--Marhawkman (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, there is no consensus that such articles should focus on real-world content. As the long and inconclusive debates at WT:FICT and multiple other places have shown, some of us think exactly the opposite--that articles on fiction should focus on what is notable about the fiction, which is usually the fictional content , including characters and setting as well as plot. The real world context is necessary--it is what distinguishes us from a fan site. For spin-off articles, there is no ned for real world context if that part is covered in the main article or other sections, but obviously, formation about the creation & design of the props is extremely valuable, and you should include it as fully as sources permit. Try for a balanced article. Plotrecapitulation is appropriate to a limited extent, to set the context for the use of the setting elements, but there's no point in duplicating details covered elsewhere. Sources are naturally needed for in-universe aspects as well, as for everything in Wikipedia, so I urge you to source the various parts of the technology article from specific instances in the fiction, and, if possible, from specific sources written about the fiction--which could well be reliable blogs, which are the usually most reliable sources for these subjects. Don't be inhibited by those who want to limit coverage--this is a comprehensive encyclopedia, and as much relevant content that can be sourced is not just acceptable but desirable.DGG (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points, particularly that articles on fiction naturally focus on what is notable about the fiction. But the way that notability is contextualized is through real-world context. For example, why is the Alien any different from any other alien creature in any other sci-fi film...different enough that it warrants its own article separate from the many other Alien-related articles? Because it's had a significant impact upon culture and the genre. You can only demonstrate this impact through real-world context, not through the fiction itself, as the fiction doesn't show the impact the creature had on the real world. So the article should focus on the real-world notability, not merely recap the plot summaries of the film articles. That's kind of where the Predator technology article stands right now: It just lists every gizmo that the creatures have used in every movie, comic, game, etc. and often makes unsubstantiated claims about them. What's really needed here is some real-world context like design, prop creation, impact upon the science fiction genre, etc. If those sources exist, great. But if they don't, or if the sourced info only amounts to a couple of paragraphs that don't go beyond the fictional context, then it belongs in the main article about the Predators and not in its own separate article. That's the nature of an encyclopedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

for impact.... (as I said earlier) Preds are always shown with their gear in any portrayal. DC Comics' Sinestro Corps War had two Sinestro Corps members who were knock-offs of a Predator and an Alien. They were only shown in one panel, but the Pred was shown dressed in full battle gear, even though he had a Power ring as a weapon. As for "unsubstantiated claims", we first need to identify them.--Marhawkman (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they always have their technology with them in every appearance, I think, makes a stronger case for covering the technology in the main Predator article (since they seem to be inseparable). I also wouldn't call the Sinestro Corps members "knock-offs"...more like "homages", a pretty common device in comics. Anyway, the clincher for me is the lack of secondary sources. Nearly every relevant policy and guideline, as well as quite a bit of consensus, indicates that we should only "spin-off" subjects that are able to demonstrate independent notability, and notability is established through third-party source coverage. It's pretty easy to find third-party sources to show how the Predators as a whole are notable, but I highly doubt there are many secondary sources showing the notability of their technology, independent of any other aspects of the creatures. The article is almost entirely plot summary, and we must balance this with real-world coverage. The best way to do that IMO is to trim down the extraneous detail and put it back in the main article where the design and prop creation can be discussed in context. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI re: template discussion you have contributed to

I've added my thoughts. Feel free to respond on any points I have brought up. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have requested that User:Journalist speedy deleted his test Template:Infobox Musical artist2 before it gets used in any more articles. It has already popped up in at least 6 different pages (the ones he frequents) and before it gets out of hand this test template should be removed. I have asked admin J Milburn to follow up but in case it slips through the cracks could you also check in on it to see that it is removed and the proper templates put i place for the articles where this rejected option has been put in place. Thanks, cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I need your help

Since you've been one of the few that has actually helped me or at least tried to, I ask for your help once again.

-How can I find Wikipedians who would be willing to help me with the article WarCry (band) [preferably Admins], to expand and maybe in the future move it to simply WarCry, if they like that type of music they would help even more (or if they speak Spanish, which is the language that the band uses) I would greatly appreciate your help. Thanks in advance-- Rockk3r Spit it Out! 04:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am at work right now but I will take a look at the article later and see how I can help. I also recommend making this request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. You could also add the article to the attention list; just follow the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians#Articles in need of attention. I don't know how to get the specific attention of editors who know Spanish (IMO the musicians project should really form a task force for that & other languages). Another helpful way to get feedback on the article would be to nominate it for GA review. A reviewer will then give you feedback on specific aspects of the article. As for the disambiguation, it looks like it's going to have to stay as "WarCry (band)" because there are several other article topics that use various forms of the name, including "WarCry". I wouldn't worry about that; the disambiguation in the title doesn't harm the article at all and in fact makes it easier for readers searching Wikipedia to find the correct article. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The Socratic barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For working with an even temperament to explain things to 68.18.220.174/201. --EEMIV (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(As much as this sometimes chafes, though, WP:BLANKING says even anonymous editors can remove warnings from "their" talk page -- the removal being interpreted as a sign that they've seen and read those warnings.) --EEMIV (talk) 07:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're right. Thanks for your own even temperament and continued hard work to improve articles! --IllaZilla (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think my temper slipped when I sarcastically dished out my menu of other insignificant sci-fi allusions... ;-) --EEMIV (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was pretty impressed by that. I was actually looking over my DVD shelves trying to make some similar comparisons myself, but you beat me to the punch. Your examples were better than mine would have been, anyway. :) --IllaZilla (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, and incidentally, I love the "Did you know?"s atop your user page. --EEMIV (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

forums

I see you removed the links to the 4 Aliens Online message boards I put up, might I ask why those were removed?--4.245.78.85 (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Aliens Online. Let's have the conversation there. Basically it's because messageboards and fan forums are not considered appropriate for the encyclopedia. The policy WP:NOT#LINK and the guideline WP:EL explain this stance further. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

go ahead

Go ahead and ban me now, I know I have a ban on sight notice for me, I'm xgmx.--4.244.3.212 (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of banning you, nor do I have a good reason to. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

ALIEN VS. PREDATOR

Hi - I have no idea how to list the sources the way that you do. I'm not exactly Mr. Wiki. However, the credit box on this Wiki page (under the poster) is quite clear and verifies what I wrote as does IMDB. There were story credits by Ronald Shusett and Dan O'Bannon and Paul Anderson and therefore it is NOT an original screenplay by Anderson. Also, Salerno rewrote the script but did not receive screen credit -- though he is widely credited with making the film a success -- and therefore should receive some credit -- hence why I put that he rewrote it after I listed the proper story credits. I don't know how to link to things which is why I put on there to check IMDB which carries the final, WGA credits -- i.e. the legitimate credits. My way correctly credits everyone involved properly. Your way leaves out O'Bannon and Shusett entire and credits Salerno for an original screenplay that Anderson wrote and Salerno REWROTE (i.e. he was the rewriter/script doctor) so only Anderson was inspired by...etc...while Salerno rewrote the existing Anderson script. I hope this is clear now. I meant you no offense. But I am correct in everything I wrote and IMDB will verify this if you will just check. Thank you. Take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthpolice7 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 21 April, 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, you didn't really have much right to remove my comment on the talk page. It's something of interest to the article, even if it is about the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.125.1 (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but article talk pages are not for general commentary. They're for discussing improvements to articles. I assume you're referring to this comment, and I fail to see what it has to do with the Wikipedia article. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. If you want to ask general questions about the film's plot, or make general commentary on it, there are online discussion forums and fan pages you can go to. However, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Musical artist

(you don't automatically move it to the bottom, that's not really how topic threading on WP works. the topics are arranged chronologically by when they were started.)

Yes, I realize that. The person who added the topic did so by adding it to the top, not by adding it to the bottom. I felt that moving it to the bottom along with my reply was a reasonable shortcut that improved the situation. The concern I was addressing was that people who only look at the bottom never saw this new content. Does that make sense? jhawkinson (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I didn't realize that it had originally been added to the top by mistake. I saw it being moved to the bottom from somewhere in the middle, and my "huh?" sense went off. No big deal either way. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Some questions and your help again

Can you tell me if this picture, or this one have the right lisence, and can be kept on Wikipedia?

Also I nominated this article for a review (here), and haven't even got an answer, even thogh the article is really good.-- Rockk3r Spit it Out! 01:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Those images look OK to me. They are copyrighted, but they are being used to show the lineup at specific points in the band's history, including members who are no longer in the band. Since the Megadeth article is a Featured Article, I would assume that someone took a look at the images and made sure they were OK (a FA review usually includes checking that any images in the article are being used properly). As for the WarCry article, I added the GA nomination template the the article's talk page. This will help reviewers to notice that it has been nominated. These nominations take time to actually get reviewed, though, as there is usually a backlog of nominees. It could take weeks, but be patient and someone will surely get to it. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I just asked if the pictures had the correct lisence, because I put that same type of lisence to a picture of warCry showing the members at that time, and with the same purpose that Megadeth's, and the someone deleted it, and I didn't know why? but thank you very much for everything, it's nice to see that there's people who like to help others on Wikipedia, thanks again.-- Rockk3r Spit it Out! 16:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Awards for Music Artist Discussion Ongoing

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_Musical_artist#Add_awards_section.FilmFan69 (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC) --FilmFan69 (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Psychobillypolice

Just letting you know that this RfC has been closed. The conclusion has been listed on the page. Wizardman 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman's warning as an administrator will still be in effect, however, as the dispute is resolved (since the user stopped editing), and there was no other third party input, the conclusion has been modified accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A plea from WikiProject Media franchises coordinator

Dear IllaZilla...I am writing today to ask for your participation in WikiProject Media franchises. You seem to have some interest in it, since you took the time to stop by and discuss the naming convention. It is just Emperor and me at the moment, and we could really use some additional editors to help us get articles identified as ones for the projects attention and assessed as such or written from scratch. Even if your only involvement is to keep an eye on what we are doing as a liaison from another project, that would be extremely helpful. I do not know everything there is to know about all the naming conventions, infoboxes, etc from the other projects, so I would love to have a core group of editors to help me coordinate this better. So, if you are willing to spend a little time with this project and help me figure out just how far and wide this project could, should, or would be; I would be extremely grateful.

Thank you. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 07:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Three-revert rule warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Ramones. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing.

First point: Three reverts in two hours and eleven minutes is very bad form.

Second point: You keep quoting a usage guideline ("Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names") seemingly unaware that it is routinely ignored--virtually all band infoboxes I have examined do not, in fact, list the band members in order of when they joined, but roughly in order of importance. That's the common practice that has made the guideline--which you seek to enforce as a rule--obsolete. I'm attempting to bring a little more rationality and clarity to the prevailing practice. You're free to disagree, of course, but you're hardly going about it the right way.DocKino (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"In order of importance" is an extremely subjective criteria and wide open for POV. The usage guideline is meant to work towards consistency by having all musical artist infoboxes follow the same basic format. The format for the "past members" fields is to list the names of the members in the order they joined. This helps eliminate the potential for POV arguments over which members to list first, as it gives a neutral baseline criteria of listing them chronologically. I haven't seen a lot of evidence to support your claim that it's "routinely ignored"; I've worked on dozens of musical artist articles and you're the only one I've encountered who seems to take issue with listing the members chronologically. So from my point of view listing them "in order of importance" is hardly "common practice". The guideline is hardly obsolete if there are WP:MUSICIAN members like myself out there actively trying to streamline these types of format inconsistencies. The point of your change, as you stated, was to "better reflect which members are in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame". However, the infobox itself has nothing to do with who's in the hall of fame and who isn't, and gives no explanation of such. The lead paragraph explains that quite well now, thanks to you (I am glad you clarified that section). The "past members" section of the infobox is supposed to simply be a chronological list of who was in the band; very simple, very straightforward. Not "here are the most important guys on top, and below this line are the less significant guys". A reader casually looking at the infobox would have no idea what the dividing line signified. I apologize for exercising my right to revert, but at the same time I would like to point out that the article has followed the usage guideline for a very long time and you're the first one I'm aware of who's challenged it. There's no particular reason to differentiate hall of famers from non-hall of famers in the "past members" field, and quite a few reasons not to. Anyway, in this article it's completely redundant since the 5 hall of famers are the first 5 chronologically anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur that "in order of importance"—or, in more practical terms, differentiation between core members and less-important members—is unacceptably subjective if there is not a strong third-party source on which to base the distinction. In the case of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, we have that. Our different perceptions may be based on the different articles we've been exposed to. I've looked at about a dozen articles concerning "classic", now-defunct groups. Take Jefferson Airplane, for instance, which lists (and apparently has listed for a long time) Grace Slick first, though she replaced founding member Signe Toly Anderson. As you can see, I respected the long-standing ordering and added a break at the appropriate point. I found similar ordering schemes in almost every article I looked at involving defunct groups that have been inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Now, apparently you've worked on dozens of musical artist articles, so you're drawing on a larger database than I am. If you assert to me that they all list members by pure chronology (and, within that, alphabetical order for members who founded or joined simultaneously?), of course I'll take your word on that. The question then becomes, would it be better to "correct" all of the articles that do not follow the chronology rule or to carve out an exception for Hall of Fame acts where we have an objective basis for distinguishing between more crucial and less crucial members (perhaps breaking the basic guideline further and making the distinction explicit in the infobox)? I think, in the end, the latter course is more helpful to our readers. However, your position is certainly no less logical, and the article can do without further disruption on this point, which is ultimately not crucial. Regards,DocKino (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we can do without the disruption. You may have a point about the Hall of Fame representing objective third-party source, but since the infobox itself makes no mention of the Hall of Fame in any form I feel that separating "Hall of Fame" and "non-Hall of Fame" members by a line is likely to be confusing to readers, and just generally rubs me as not neutral when the intent of the section is to present a straightforward, unfettered list of names. In my opinion distinction between Hall of Fame and non-Hall of Fame members is something best left in the article body and out of the infobox. Frankly the infobox just isn't capable of providing the explanation or context, nor do I think it is the appropriate place to do so. When I explained that the articles I've been involved with generally follow the usage guideline I didn't necessarily mean that they all did so before my involvement. However, this is the first time I've encountered any reversion or resistance to having the members arranged chronologically. If you'd like to make a proposal to make an explicit distinction in the infobox between Hall of Fame and non-Hall of Fame members, you're certainly welcome to raise the point at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist. I'd like to thank you for your cordiality. It certainly proves that we can disagree without being disagreeable. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP

Done! And you're welcome :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I cant really block him anymore, as he is inactive. It is best just to report them to WP:AIV, because when you reported him to me, I was sleeping :P « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 17:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I wanted to thank you for defending me on the Tin Man discussion page. I realise we've had our differences in the past and maybe I haven't always been entirely civil with you which makes me all the more grateful for your support as it was unconditional. In any case I'm starting to babble now so thank you anyway. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Even though our opinions may differ we are both doing what we think is best to improve the encyclopedia, and in the end that's really the most important thing. I myself have been involved in some discussions where I haven't been at my best civility-wise, but I'm always stimulated by the discussion process and often pleasantly surprised by the cordiality of other editors, so I like to pay that kindness forward, as it were. To borrow a quote from User:Jgstokes, "we can disagree without being disagreeable." --IllaZilla (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Well put. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Image sizes

Hi, thanks for contacting me about the images. WP:FILMS guidelines state that one of the dimensions of the image should be 300px or smaller. I don't care for the policy that much either (I've seen it on several wikipedia pages and other projects). I only do it to prevent the images from being deleted by editors who take the policy more adamantly than I do. So if you reduce the images to that size, they should be fine. That's interesting that you're at SDSU, I thought I was the only editor here. I'm also in my last semester for my BA, but may stay for my Master's. I'm actually in the early stages of completing a history of SDSU article right now. Anyway, if you have any further questions about the images let me know. Excellent work with the Alien article, it shouldn't have too many problems passing GA. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please return to WikProject Media franchises

Dear IllaZilla...You are invited to come back to discuss WikiProject Media franchises. Since you participated in one or more discussions of the project, possibly when it was known as WikiProject Fictional series, I hope to see you return to it. The project needs your participation. Currently there is no activity on the project's talk page about the reorganization which is discouraging. I had great expectations for this project as it touches so many topics but am becoming discouraged. I hope to see you return. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 19:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you?

Could you help me w/ WarCry's introducction (lead) on the article, I just can't make it right. I'm working on it really hard trying to make it a FA, recently I made it a FA candidate, but it failed because of the lead, some grammar errors, and some problems with the references (citation) which I didn't put the right way (showing the author and everything). Once again, could you help me w/ the lead?

PD: Or you could just recommend me someone who coul ;)  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 01:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Links in song titles

I see that you removed some internal links in song titles (Versus God, This Shit Is Genius, etc.), some of which probably needed to be removed but also others that seemed kosher per WP:EL. I looked around a few WikiProject pages but can't find any mention of that being policy. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction? Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL is for external links. We're dealing with internal links here. There's really no policy or guideline, but common practice at WP:ALBUM for song titles is to only link the full title, and only if there's a separate article about the song. Linking individual words or phrases within a song titles is extraneous and often runs contrary to WP:EGG as the links are usually not intuitive. For example, one of the ones I removed from Versus God was "[[Maximum RocknRoll|Maximum Piss & Vinegar]]". A reader clicking on this link would be expecting to go to an article about the song "Maximum Piss & Vinegar", but would instead find themselves at Maximum RocknRoll with no explanation as to why they are now reading an article about a magazine. The way to provide this context would be to state, in the lead section or elsewhere, something like "The song 'Maximum Piss & Vinegar' is a reference to the magazine Maximum RocknRoll." Same thing for "Double[[whiskey]][[Coca-Cola|coke]]noice". This is why, in general, the albums wikiproject encourages only linking the full song title, and only if there's a separate article about the song. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Civil War (album)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Civil War (album), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Civil War (album)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Civil War (album), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil War (album). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Closed as withdrawn; boiler plates added to talk page. Thanks for doing all that research! I think that's the most well-supported future album article I've ever seen. Leaving now; good night. Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC) (incorrectly posted to another user. Meant for you! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

WarCry (band)

Im really sorry I revertd the changes, I started siting refs and helping and saved the page, but was all a mistake. I want to thank for all this you're doing, trust me I really appreciate it. Thanks again. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 16:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I suspected you might not have done it on purpose. I guess our edits just conflicted. You've done some great work on the article, and I'm happy to help polish it up. See if you can hunt down some references for the Lyrics and Awards sections, and I'll finish going through the rest today. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on that. already found the official links for the references on the awards. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 02:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You said that this is a history of the band, not just albums, so I would like to divide the headings that way (the weay you did: as formation, rise to populrity, etc.), but the next headings are divided just by the albums, and I don't know what title should I give'em. Please leave me a {{tb}} template when you read this.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 21:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I went camping for the weekend but I'm back now so I'll finish going through the article & re-titling the sections this afternoon. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but there this problem. The previous formations are not included in the band's history on their website, Demon 97 it's not included in their works, their history begins in 2001. I've been working on this article for a long time and looked for info about those formations many times, and trust me it has nothing to do with the band. Victor Garcia took the name War-Cry and took off the dash, leaving it as simply WarCry (as stated by himself, just to do it like bands like Manowar [Man o' War], or Megadeth [Megadeath], and to make it easier, here is the interview, you can't verify it cause it's in Spanish, but that's what it says. Showing "Dormation 1992-2002" it's going to be a little confusing, also if the reader comes and see 10 years in formation they'll think "what the %^*&% were they doing all those years, and then just suddenly started releasing an album every year from 2001 til now". Those formations are best shown the last way I left them: in your own words after correcting what I wrote, but showing from 2001-2002 and telling that info about the 1990s formations inside of the long dashs as I did. I hope you'd understand this, and if you find a better way, please don't hesitate to tell me about it.

PD: I won't revert it to the last version until having discussed this with you, to show my respect to you. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 03:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't find it that confusing at all. WarCry is far from the first band to have done this. Lots of bands go through formative periods where they're more or less just a side project until they really coalesce into a full-on "band". Guttermouth comes to mind: There was an early incarnation of that band that had totally different members but really only played a few parties; a year or so later one of the guys had formed a new band and decided to use the Guttermouth name & they went on to have a pretty solid career. It makes perfect sense to say that Victor Garcia had a project called War-Cry starting in 1992, but it was more or less a side project recording demos and such. When he and Ardines got booted from Avalanch, they resurrected the WarCry name for their new project. It makes total sense to me. The history section should explain this, in chronological order, but you can still have the "years active" in the infobox start with 2001 as that's when WarCry really started to be active as a band and release records. They weren't "active" from 1992-2001 as they were just a side project/idea of Garcia's, but the name "WarCry" was being used by Garcia nonetheless and obviously he did record some stuff under that name, so that needs to be mentioned first. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

They haven't still achieved that "international succes", but more likely "Spanish success", what I mean is: ¿Dónde Está La Luz?, Directo A La Luz, and La Quinta Esencia should be included together as they mark the band's latest and best-selling works till the moment, also "rise to popularity" is too long compared to 'int. success'.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 16:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's better to divide the headings this way:

On the first one "the formation and WarCry (that one is OK)

On the second, include only El Sello De Los Tiempos and Alea Jacta Est (that way you show the picture w/ bassist Jardon)

Onthe third one, include ¿Dónde Está La Luz?, Directo A La Luz, and La Quinta Esencia (showing now the picture with Roberto Garcia as new bassist.

And the the other (which is OK too) Rockk3r Spit it Out! 16:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a question. The references come originally from Spanish language sites. How should I show'em

-In English (their original Spanish title translated to English).

-With their original name in Spanish.

I really don't know the best way. Also, I'm supposed to show the {{sp icon}}, but 90% of the refs are in that language.; S should I just leave that nothe on top of the ref section sayin "all refs in Spanish, except where noted" or include the (in Spanish) in the Spanish refs?(which I think it'll look a little confusing.

Hmmm, I haven't worked with non-English sources before. WP:NONENG is the relevant policy here, and if I read it correctly it says that if you're translating a direct quote (which happens several times in the WarCry article) then you need to provide the original quote, in Spanish, within the footnote. That shouldn't be too much of a problem. I say do that, use the Spanish titles of the articles in the citations, and use the sp icon next to each one that's in Spanish. It's not that big of a deal, and it's the standard practice even when a majority of the sources are in the same (non-English) language. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that got me a little confused now. Could you make an example as a guide. Use english as if it was Spanish (or whatever you may want to do) it's just that I didn't get that. Sorru :( Rockk3r Spit it Out! 22:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll cook up an example and leave it on your talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me that, but it leads to another problem... see on the article, the 2nd ref. as many others is cited in many places for diferent citations (^abcd "Interview with WarCry". - appears like that). So now I can't quote 4 different citations, and even if I could I see no way how that could be done.

You only really need the quote in the footnote when you're using a direct quote, like when you're quoting something one of the band members said in Spanish and then translating it yourself to put in the article. So in that situation, just copy the citation but don't give it a name. That way it will appear as a separate footnote with the quote. Or, you could just list those sources as "General references", and then do individual citations for the quotes. That's what I did in Alien (film): Look at the references. I listed The Beast Within featurette as a general reference, since I knew I was going to use lots of quotes from several different segments of it & it wouldn't work to name them all as the same citation. Now look at the footnotes. I just had to refer to the title The Beast Within, then I could give whatever quote I wanted. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have worked but I thank you anyway. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It will work. The bot runs its cycle every couple of days (every 3 days I think). Give it a few days and it will start filing things away for you. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Alien (film) comments

Hi, I would like to say that this article is an excellent reading on the general level, but reveals several problems on closer reading (FAC level); the key of which is the prose. I encountered several cases of noun plus -ing, misplaced formalities, redundancies, and awkward phrasings. You might want to go through Tony's guides, although I think you are too close to the text at the moment (the massive effort invested in this article tends to blind). For an article this large, it is quite easy to overlook details (a reader might feel rushed to glance over things to get to the next juicy bit). I recommend obtaining the help of two or more experienced copyeditors to go through this text and refine the reading experience. You can try asking EyeSerene, AnnaFrance, Maralia, and other volunteers who frequent the FACs or the FA-Team. To end on a good note, I must say that this article presents the general direction movie articles here should take—more out-of-universe information and less fanboy-like speculation (although I encountered one: the relating of Acheron to the river in Greek mythology and hence to Dante's Inferno should be sourced). The casting section is especially exemplary. No indulgence was paid to fluff the actor with the role he or she is playing (delving into in-universe story-telling) but to telling his or her credentials and how the actor came to be in the project. Good luck! Jappalang (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the comments and suggestions, they are greatly appreciated. I totally agree with you on the general direction that film articles should take with respect to out-of-universe info and casting sections. I will take a look at the guide and also ask for help from the copyeditors you've mentioned. This is my first FA nomination, so it's the learn-by-doing method. Thanks again! --IllaZilla (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you should seriously consider the two books (I found a third). Take a look at them through Google books for previews and get them at the library if possible (or buy them if they really perk your interest).

• Alien Woman: The Making of Lt. Ellen Ripley by Ximena Gallardo C., C. Jason Smith
• Alien Zone by Annette Kuhn
• Alien Zone II by Annette Kuhn

Good luck! Jappalang (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I will see if my university library has them first. I'm definitely interested in pursuing this. I foresee the "critical analysis" eventually splitting off into an independent article, as the main article is already around 95K. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

How?

How did that guy ever become an admin?? I think a re-vote is pending for him. He must be one of the most ignorant POV pushing soapboxers I have crossed paths with in a long while... and an admin to boot. Wikipedia had pretty low standards the day that guy got the mop. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree; my interactions with him have not been smooth (beginning with that whole "style field" issue). I do think he overstepped his bounds as an admin on that one, and his comments haven't been helpful on this new issue. It's terribly difficult trying to work things out with someone who becomes so easily incensed. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a ton of "behind the scenes" chat about his d*nkness/a**holeness. That he faces a de-sysop someday would not surprise me in the least. And I will be the first post through the door to get his sorry excuse for an admin a** booted out of here. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Alien

I have put a note [14], relating to this article. Its more about WP standards, than the article you have nominated, but as I have used your nomintation as an example, I thought I should let you know. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll take a look. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion

Right now let's focus on addressing the consensus issue. While I'd love to continue the debate about whether or not the genre field is appropriate, the RFC section is supposed to focus on the topic of the consensus to remove the template. Even I missed that on the first reading. Let's lay the genre field debate to the side and focus on the RFC topic at the moment. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I missed it on first reading too. I don't think it was very clearly phrased. I gave a rebuttal to a comment, Orane rebutted me, then it spun out of control. I'll save it for the other threads. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music

Hi. It was pointed out on my talkpage that the subsection I created under Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Template:Infobox_Album.2C_removal_of_genre for my statement "in favor" may have been causing people to overlook the comments subsection below it. I suggested to the editor who noted this that since nobody ever placed a specific "statement against" that sectioning out my comment might seem to give it more importance than its deserved, as its simply one among many positions. (In other words, it's not being addressed like a user RFC, where one person posts a view and others endorse or don't (example.) To avoid that, I have eliminated my original subheader and moved the "comments" subheader above it, with a note there indicating that I have merged the subsections. If you object to this, since you also commented in that subsection, please let me know. The purpose here is to hopefully increase clarity of the conversation so that new contributors can easily understand it. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Makuta Teridax (Bionicle)

Your conflict at Makuta Teridax (Bionicle) is turning into an edit war. Please try to speak to the opposing party at the talk page rather then engaging in an edit war. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've spoken to User:Jupiter Optimus Maximus several times about his problems with original research, but he's not receptive. I'm close to taking it through official channels as he's an experienced editor and, based on his history, knows better than to engage in OR yet does it anyway. With regard to this article, I don't think that 4 edits by me over a 6-day period constitutes an edit war, but your mileage may vary. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Is your signature supposed to look like that, or is it an error in coding? If it is you might see about fixing it. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured List

Hi IllaZilla, I recently nominated the List of WarCry band members for featured list. I think it looks really good, and have gotten no oppose yet. But I need you to take a look at the refrences and tell me if that's the way you recommended me to do it. You know I'm not that good with the references, so I'd just like to know your opinion about them, and maybe you could give your criteria about the article in the nomination page. Again, thanks for everything. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 03:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

They've invented some three-revert rule recently which we appear to have violated. As we clearly can't see eye to eye at the moment would you be so kind as to take our disagreement regarding the personality section in the Lord Voldemort article to the talk page of said article please? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR has been around a long time but I've rarely come even close to breaking it, so often I forget it. But yeah, let's take it to the talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And technically you're the one on the verge of breaking 3RR. I've only reverted that article twice in the last 24 hours (and hadn't edited the article for over a week before that), whereas you've reverted 3 times today. In fact I'm actually tempted to warn you for 3RR, as edit summaries like "Glaringly to you maybe but I don't think any sane person would complain. And besides I am the rightful lord of Wikipedia and WILL be treated with due respect" do not indicate good faith (even if you're being sarcastic). You've cautioned others about original research before, so I know you understand what it means. Yet you still insist on putting original research into articles, and keeping it there, as long as it's your own. This is quite hypocritical. When you put your own analysis or interpretation of something into an article, without citing any sources, you are breaking the No Original Research policy, pure and simple. Even when you think that the analysis is "glaringly obvious". I'm not the only other editor who's warned you about this either. You need to start taking the hint. You can call it "creative assumption", but it's still OR. "A rose by any other name...", after all. You may think it's "necessary and unavoidable", but it's strictly against Wikipedia's policies, which are formed by and reflect wide community consensus. I feel no guilt or remorse about removing such original research on sight, and will continue to do so. I think the quote in the Verifiability policy sums up my feeling on the subject:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales (Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16). ""Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"". WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. Retrieved 2006-06-11.)

--IllaZilla (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your edit to Bishop (Aliens)

Thanks for pointing that out. I thought it was the appropriate thing to do because Wiki said no swearing on your User Page. Anyways thanks again.--Itaxan (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Disconnected

Hey man, just thought I'd pop by and say excellent work on the "Disconnected" article. I honestly would never have expected it to reach anywhere near that standard. Good work on proving me wrong. Good luck with the Masters too! Nouse4aname (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You are of course entirely correct, I should not have rushed straight to AfD. In my defense, I really didn't expect there to be anything out there with which to create an article. How wrong I was. I will certainly exhaust all other options in future before AfD'ing. Cheers. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Punkmusic-stub}}

Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 01:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My genre proposal

Since I'm using the WP:MUSIC talk page for prose feedback at the moment, I wanted to personally ask you for your input on my proposed guidelines themselves. As I recall, you were one of the people most strongly against having a genre field in infoboxes. So I ask: do you feel my proposed guidelines address your objections? Do you think a specific guideline should be more stringent? Is there anything you feel I haven't addressed? You can reply here, and I will do my best to address your concerns. I mean, if you object to everything I've written, that's totally fine (although it means you probably won't change your mind once we get to the discussion stage), but if the guidelines go a ways towards addressing the concerns you had, I'd definitely like to hear your thoughts on them. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Re copyedit request for Alien

I do apologise for such a late reply - I'd somehow overlooked your post :( Unfortunately I'm up to my eyeballs in copyedits at the moment, but if you're in no hurry and want to give me a nudge sometime in the new year, I'll see what I can do. Sorry I can't be more accommodating at the moment. EyeSerene^talk 18:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The FA review has closed and it will be a while before I'm ready to nominate it again, so there is plenty of time to work on it. I'll definitely come back to you when it comes time for copyediting. Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Help with account merger

{{helpme}}

I'm posting this after having searched for instructions elsewhere and not found a solution. When I first registered on Wikipedia in April 2006 I did so under the username Seaworldpunk. In January 2007 I decided to change my username to my current one, IllaZilla. However I was at the time unaware that there was an official process for doing this (WP:RENAME), so I effected this change by simply moving my old userpage and talk page to the new ones (sse [15], [16], [17], [18]). As a result my old account still exists, though I have not used it in 22 months and do not intend to ever use it again, and all of the edits made under the old account are still attributed to that account. I would like those old edits to be reattributed to my current account, IllaZilla. I understand that it is not possible to merge accounts, however I would like to know if it is possible to reattribute the old account's edits to the current account. I could then request that the old user page and user talk pages be deleted, and thus, in a roundabout way, have effected a merge. I understand that this would not change my old signatures on talk pages, etc., and I am willing to hunt those down and change them manually if necessary, though I don't imagine it will be. If anyone is able to help with this request I would greatly appreciate it. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Account histories can't be merged, unfortunately. Your best bet is to just put a note on your current userpage saying "I used to be known as X and my contribs can be found at Y", and on your old userpage "I am now known as Z." [ roux ] [x] 07:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Villain

Hi, noticed you are regular contributor to this page. Could you please explain the difference between Villain and anti-Hero? There is no information on this in Wikipedia. Thanks. --Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...well, I don't claim to be an expert, but from my experience as a fan of fiction and literature I would say that the major distinction is that a villain tends to be the antagonist in a story, while an anti-hero tends to be the protagonist. That's not always the case, but in general a villain tends to be the "bad guy" who acts in nefarious ways, while an anti-hero tends to be a "good guy" who doesn't really act in a virtuous manner but still has good intentions. For example, take Venom from the Spider-Man comics: In his early appearances he was a villain, an antagonist bent on killing Spider-Man, though he did have a twisted moral compass that restrained him from harming "innocents". When the character was given his own series in 1993 in which he was the protagonist, he was presented as an anti-hero: he protected people and had noble intentions but he still killed those he viewed as threats and still found himself opposed by Spider-Man, the government, and other forces. Magneto is another example: he has frequently been presented as an antagonist, a villain whose goal is to eradicate normal humans so that mutants can be the dominant species on Earth. However, he has also often acted as a protagonist, an anti-hero on the side of the X-Men and other heroes, helping to defend the Earth from even greater threats and then later returning to his villainous ways. So, I would say the distinction is usually whether the character is the protagonist or antagonist of the story. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This helped a lot. A quick thought, does the character Jigsaw Killer in Saw (film series) anti-hero since he builds traps to endanger lives of people, but with the intention to educate them about the value of life? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say probably not, because the character is not the protagonist of the story. By the same token one might claim that Kevin Spacey's character in Seven is an anti-hero, though both are clearly the antagonists of their respective films. Jigsaw may have complex motivations and a twisted sense of morality, but that doesn't necessarily make his actions heroic. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Millencolin

Hi, I moved the article from Detox (Millencolin Single) to Detox (song) per naming conventions per WP:NC#Album and song titles and band names. Articles should no longer be disambiguated using "single" but by using "song". A band's name should never be used to disambiguate the title unless there is more than one song named "Detox" with an WP article, which there isn't. I know you're not supposed to just cut and paste from a previously existing article to preserve the article's history, but since there was so little history anyway, I made the move. --Wolfer68 (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice the redirect target. Why didn't you just move it instead? --IllaZilla (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and the article Detox (song) had already been created then redirected to the album that it came from, so there was small history there that didn't allow me to make the move myself. --Wolfer68 (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There are templates you can place to have an admin make the move. I'll take care of it. Give me a few minutes to find the correct template. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. I do know how to do that. I just made the presumptive move because I noticed there was practically no history to the "Millencolin Single" version of the article. I probably shouldn't have done that, so again thank you. --Wolfer68 (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Alien Vs Predator (Jaguar) Reverts

I am trying to improve the article and you keep reverting the changes. My changes are NOT "excessive plot", and I barely added anything to the plot. I did mention 1) the weapons used in the game, 2) the play mechanics of the game, and 3) the reception of the game (WITH REFERENCES!).

If you have a problem with a part of that content then edit ONLY THAT PART, otherwise you are preventing improvements to that article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.119.135 (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:PLOT. We want to keep plot summaries concise. Expanding on the existing summary does not help that goal, especially when you add a different section for each character's "story". I restored the reception section, as I had not intended to remove that...my mistake there. If you want to expand the discussion of play mechanics then feel free to do so, but perhaps it would be pertinent to split the "plot" and "gameplay" into separate sections. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WHAT did you think was excessive? By reverting the entire section you make it IMPOSSIBLE to understand what your problem is. I don't believe I added anything about the "plot" other than what the goal of each character in the game is, so I have NO IDEA what it is that should be changed. Furthermore, if you believe a change I've made should be rewritten then you should make that change. A revert means you think everything I added needed to be removed. I tried to reorganize the article -- giving each character their own section -- to make the article easier to read. If you believe there is a better way to reorganize it then please edit the article to reflect that, rather than just erasing someone else's work. I put time and energy into trying to make that article better, and if you believe you can make an improvement on my improvement than please do so. But please stop reverting constructive changes. -- 66.27.119.135 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC).

Walk Among Us and Image:Walk Among Us.jpg

With regards to the above linked article and image, you may want to read WP:BRD. You were bold in removing the images, I reverted, but you decided not to discuss it. I am readding the images to the article. If you think that they should be removed, I suggest discussing it on the article's talk page.--Rockfang (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've started a section on the article's talk page if you'd like to discuss it. I'd like to get other editor's opinions as well.--Rockfang (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've replied, but for what it's worth I don't think BRD trumps obvious fair-use abuse and will save images that clearly fail WP:NFCC, in much the same way that BRD would not really be pertinent in a WP:BLP violation...something that blatantly contrary to our polices doesn't need discussion, it's to be excised immediately. When it comes to non-free material, the burden is on the editors wishing to keep it in the article, not on those (me) who believe we can and should do without it. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe Escalante

Hey IllaZilla - I tracked down those citations. Joe *did* leave the morning show, and I *did* hear him say it on the radio (actually, it was on an iTunes realtime stream as I sipped coffee all the way over here in New Hampshire). Fortunately he posted on his website and they stream Barely Legal. Citations are included. Standards do have to be kept high in order for WP to work, I guess. That's my first post! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beldenak (talk • contribs) 17:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work. I was meaning to check his website to see if I could source the statements but I've been working on other things & kept forgetting. Thanks for following up on that! --IllaZilla (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Silver Reel

On behalf of a grateful project, congrats!

It is my honor, as the Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Films, to confer upon you the WikiProject Service Award, Second Class - the Silver Reel. Awarded for your work on Alien (film), a Wikipedia 0.7 article, which you brought from B to GA-class. Most gratefully, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

seeking your opinion on List of heroic stock characters

saw you made an edit to Villian claiming it was a list farm. What do you think of this page? Same thing? SpikeJones (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much the same thing, but not quite since it's a list article. I could see this going to AfD because it's more or less an indiscriminate list & doesn't establish notability of the topic. It also doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose that Category:Stock characters doesn't. It has been tagged for some time & not improved, so I'd recommend AfD at this point. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. SpikeJones (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nothing Nice to Say 421 panel.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nothing Nice to Say 421 panel.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

AFD of Orange County ska scene

In the interest of collaborative editing, you may wish to comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orange County ska scene. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've commented on the AfD. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello over there

Ha, I just saw your comments on the Misfits talk page that seem to have been informed by my genre guidelines proposal. I'll finish it sometime in the near future; I just got worn out dealing with the folks who thought it was too restrictive (and it's funny considering that a number of people originally against the genre field in the infoboxs liked it). By the way, if you ever need sources for music articles, please feel free to ask. I have a number of books on my shelf, some magazine back issues, and access to rocksbackpages.com. I can also point you to some dandy references online. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for the offer. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

To the editor at the 210.24.206.xx IP

I am addressing you here in the hope that you may see this message, as all of my other attempts to communicate with you have been fruitless. This is in regard to the revert wars we have had at Aliens versus Predator (video game), Aliens versus Predator 2, and Aliens versus Predator 2: Primal Hunt.

Let's re-examine how this started. I rewrote those article in August 2008 to reduce the amount of plot detail in them and bring them in line with several of Wikipedia's standards, namely WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. In September you came along and reverted them back to the previous versions, leaving no explanation. I reverted you back. Thus began the edit war. I left you a few messages on your IP talk pages, but since your IP address changes each time you're here there's no way to know if you're getting those messages. So I chose to communicate with you via edit summaries instead. You were making edits like this where you encouraged other editors to "please help by reverting all changes back to my version". What you need to realize is that these articles are not yours. See WP:OWN. All contributions to Wikipedia are made under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, which is irrevocable and allows your contributions to be edited by others. This means that other editors have every right to edit your contributions heavily, even by removing large chunks, and that you cannot claim that certain versions of articles are "yours".

Back to the issue at hand. I was not the only editor who believed that the plot summary and in-depth game details in these articles were too much. Several other editors held the same view and also reverted you: [19] [20]. I pointed out the relevant guidelines to you in edit summaries like this one, yet you continued to revert. In your edits beginning this month (like this one), you started to claim things like "don't you know Wikipedia was successful for its detailed plot summaries?" My response to that is threefold:

1. Whether Wikipedia will be "successful" is yet to be seen. It has only existed for 7 years and is still growing, having not risen to general popularity until the last couple of years. It is not yet widely recognized as a reliable source, particularly by academics, so it still has a long way to go.
2. General consensus is that Wikipedia is better served by limiting plot summaries than by allowing expansive detailed ones. Per WP:NOT#PLOT, we treat plots in an encyclopedic manner by keeping summaries short and focusing on the real-world aspects of works of fiction. WP:WAF gives further guidance along these lines, while WP:PLOT explains that there can even be copyright issues with summaries that are too long and detailed compared to the rest of the article.
3. Since we are discussing video games, WP:GAMEGUIDE specifies that Wikipedia is not a game guide. Again, we discuss video games from the perspective of the real world, focusing on their development and impact rather than writing entire articles of plot summary.

I made many attempts to tell you these things, and invited you to discuss the issues on the talk pages of the respective articles. You claimed that you did not know how to use the talk pages, so I tried to give you instructions on how to do so. Of course, since your IP is dynamic, you probably never got that message. At this point I ceased trying to communicate with you and began treating your edits as pure vandalism, since you refused to communicate in any productive way and only seemed interested in revert-warring. Your edit summaries began to degenerate into personal attacks against me, which is strictly prohibited by WP:NPA. See for example edits like this one and this one. You then crossed another line when you registered an account under a username that was a blatant attack on me. This is absolutely unacceptable. I reported you for a violation of the username policy and your account was blocked (a bot also automatically reported you at the same time because your username triggered an automatic flag). I also requested that all 3 articles be semi-protected, which they were. Please note that I was not the one who blocked you, nor the one who protected the articles. I merely made the requests.

Your latest response to all this has been to vandalize my userpage, making a number of insults and threats. On top of being totally unacceptable, there are a few things I feel I should clear up for you:

1. I am male, so all your gender-based insults really only have the effect of making me chuckle.
2. Your shifting IP address will not protect you if you continue to vandalize Wikipedia and to make threats and insults. Actions like that can actually get your entire IP range blocked for persistent vandalism. It has happened before many times. Also, depending on where your IP is located (and it is not that hard to find out...Singapore Pacnet), the Wikimedia Foundation may be able to contact the owner of the IP address and report the abuse to them (abuse@pacnet.com). This means that if you are editing from a school or dorm room, the school would be informed. If you are editing from work, your employer would be informed. I am not threating you, I am saying these are actions that can be taken against persistent vandals like yourself, and if you continue in this manner I will report you to WP:ANI. The ball is in your court.
3. You are perfectly welcome to copy whatever Wikipedia content you wish to your own website, as long as you properly attribute the source of the content. That is one of the terms of the GFDL. Then you will no longer have a reason to continue edit-warring here on Wikipedia. I would suggest that GameFAQs is a project more your style.
4. I could not possibly care less what you do on YouTube.

That is all I have to say on the matter. If you continue to revert-war, or make any threats or insults of any kind, I will report you. Your good faith reserves are pretty much at zero. It is now your decision: either to discuss these issues in a civil manner, or to continue with the same behavior you have been engaging in and ultimately deal with the consequenses. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Changing all punk band lead-ins to say "rock band"

Hey there. I decided that aiming for generality in the lead-in for bands is the best way to go, plus it says so in the MoS. So can you help me, whenever you see it, to change band lead-ins to say "rock band"? I've already got most of the big players, Pistols, Ramones, Damned, Clash, Black Flag, Bad Brains, Minor Threat. Make sure to use this caution note (remove asterisks) to deter people from reverting the change:

<*!--Lead section, as per WIKI:MOS, is supposed to aim for generality. Specific subgenre and style are to follow afterward--*>rock band

Thanks. --Tim010987 (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed some of your changes. I'll probably follow the same general format; hopefully it won't cause too many ripples. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I dont't it's necessary in every instance. It really depends on what you are talking about in the lead section. With the likes of top-tier punk bands like the Ramones, Sex Pistols, etc. whose impact on the genre will be mentioned in the lead, or dealing with bands who have played in other genres besides punk, then it's best to start off by call them a rock band. If there's little to no direct mention of genre in the lead, or are going to discuss punk subgenres, start with punk rock. For example, I wrote the lead sections for both R.E.M. and The Smashing Pumpkins. Both are alternative rock bands, but the first genre mentioned is basically dependent on how the lead sections need to be structured in regards to the article subject. Which is my long winded way of saying: yeah, be general with the first sentence, but how general you have to be depends on the subject and the content. Also, you don't need to link rock band; just the genre. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't have to be the same in every instance. FYI this stemmed from a conversation we had at Talk:Misfits (band)#Genre?. I noted there that for some bands it probably wouldn't be necessary. The Sex Pistols, for example, never played anything other than punk rock, so it may not be necessary to be more general than that as their style does not require multiple genres to describe. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

How you refused my negotiating offer

I've removed your comment as it's blatantly offensive and insulting. You might want to read my message to you 2 topics up^. You never offered to "negotiate", because you refused to discuss the issues on any of the article talk pages. Clearly you've figured out how talk pages work; it was pretty obvious that you just didn't care to discuss things. I'm only willing to put up with this kind of jackassery for so long before I just ignore you altogether and automatically revert, which is what I did. Now that you've made it clear you just want to attack and insult me, I'm going to report you to WP:ANI. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gezora

Could you explain why you didn't vote to redirect in this AFD? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I explained it rather explicitly in my !vote. As Ryan says, if you trimmed all the OR and cut down the plot summary you'd have 1 line left. The 2 references provided don't establish any independent notability for the monster outside the context of the film, and don't provide any real-world context. They also don't appear to be reliable. Where there is no useful sourced content, there can be nothing to merge, nor is there anywhere to merge this to other than the film article which already has a plot summary. So, nothing useful to merge and nowhere to merge it to = Delete. I don't think I've said anything here that I didn't say in my !vote, so I'm not sure why I need to qualify my assessment any further. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Punk music

IllaZilla, thanx for msgng all of us about the overhaul. Hopefully this will lead to better articles on punk rock. Adding a quality and importance scale is a really good tool to help us do this. However, we should be careful that too many articles are not lost in the process (the ones that drop off the bottom, but im not too concerned about that now). Anyway, I added my username back to the list of active participants and took it off the inactive list. My main focus is the pop punk article which I put alot of work into between dec. 04 and the summer of 05. Anyway, let me know if there is anything else I should be looking at. I'd appreciate help to make the pop punk article qualify for a higher rating on the quality scale. I am glad to see that it has already been rated "High-Importance" on the importance scale. Alight. Word man. Xsxex (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad to have you back onboard. The best way to keep articles from "dropping off the bottom" is to go into the unassessed article categories and start doing some at-a-glance assessments. I did quite a few but then moved on to other things; I'll probably go back and so some more sometime soon, but with a couple hundred articles in there any help is much appreciated. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_ongoing_conflicts#Alien_vs._Predator.3F

Not sure what to make of the above. Thoughts? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on the article talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And I've now replied to your reply. :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Misfits lead-in

I was talking with WesleyDodds about lead-in genre, and he said that it's probably good to stay general unless a band has consistently been associated with a genre throughout their whole career. So I thought about The Misfits, and I think it would be a good idea, actually, to just have "punk rock band" in the lead-in since they've always in some way been connected to punk throughout their entire 31 year career. I get the point about generality, yes, but I think calling them a punk rock band is general enough. Everytime I see "rock band" there I think it's kind of ridiculous. I think we just say "punk rock band" in the beginning. --Tim010987 (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you jive that with the fact that you went around so many articles changing the lead sentence to "rock band"? Most artists are associated with more than 1 single genre in the span of their career. Even the Ramones, who were always considered punk rock, have a lead sentence that says "rock band". The Misfits may have always been associated with punk rock, but they've also always been associated with horror punk, and in the '90s they were associated with heavy metal. Personally I just try to put myself in the shoes of a reader who has no idea what the subject is before reading the article. The first sentence needs to set the context: "The Misfits are a rock band". --IllaZilla (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Alien (1979) - main cast.png

Thanks for uploading File:Alien (1979) - main cast.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Shiny things and related

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I can't thank you enough for your contributions to WT:BH. Thank you! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 06:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy to offer some insight. If you decide to go through with any of that (particularly setting up assessments) and need a hand, don't hesitate to ask :) --IllaZilla (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about the best way. Maybe the members list will get a bit bigger resulting in a somewhat hotter discussion. WP:GNR and WP:Floyd tell me the opposite. :-( If it's only me plus some temporary editors it's hopeless.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 06:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Alien vs Predator Revert War

Hi there. I noticed the revert war on the AvP article. Is there anything that we could do to maybe reach a compromise? The other use seems hell-bent on getting his reverts in, and I'm worried that this will just continue and you'll be forced to continually revert stuff. I really don't know what to do in these situations, but if I can help with things at all, please let me know. It looks like you're absolutely right, but the guy has put a lot of effort in. Do you think maybe there is a way we can help him turn his efforts into some constructive change? Icemotoboy (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried requesting temporary semi-protection of the pages, but it was declined as there was not enough recent reverting to warrant protection. The IP editor comes along every few days, sometimes even only once a month, and reverts the articles so it's hard to say "look, this is a repeated and ongoing problem right now". Plus he doesn't have a static IP address; it changes each time, though it's from the same range, so trying to block him would really be of no help. The bottom line is that I went to a lot of effort to rewrite those articles and bring them more in line with standards, and s/he is just hell-bent on keeping the old versions which had truckloads of plot summary and not much else. I've tried reaching out via messages on the IP talk pages, pointing out WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF, but there's no way to even know that those messages are being received due to the shifting IPs. I also asked in edit summaries for the IP to take the issue to the talk page. They refused, saying they didn't know how to use the talk page, so I left a message with instructions on how to do it. But again, I have no way of knowing if that message was received. As for helping him turn his efforts into something constructive, I don't have a lot of hope for that. This is a single-purpose editor with an agenda: s/he wants to keep their preferred versions of the AVP game pages and Sylar, and that's it; that's the extent of their activity. When all efforts to converse with the person have failed, blocking probably won't help, and I can't get the pages semi-protected, what other options are there? --IllaZilla (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just reverted what you undid of mine but I hope you don't mind - I didn't add any white space (I assume you mean next to the Game Boy picture?) - I added the Acorn Electron format which you had removed when you merged everything (presumably because it isn't on that website you used). I don't know how to fix the whitespace problem but could you have a look rather than just changing the last edit? Thanks. Retro junkie (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see if anything needs tweaking. I probably didn't notice the addition of the acorn electric format because it's hard to spot amongst all of the code in those tables (one of the reasons I kind of stopped working on the list article was because the tables were so complex). If I had noticed it, I probably would have been skeptical as I hadn't seen it on any of the sites I searched for references. But yeah, I'll have a look. Sorry about having deleted it before. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Please do not revert an edit three times in a 24 hour period as you have done so in the Black Flag (band) article. --Oakshade (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your out of consensus change

Regarding Black Flag (band), Your change is out of consensus, plain and simple. You edit comment was "show me where such consensus has been established". Here is where consensus has been established; The introduction of this band as a "punk band", or specifically as a "hardcore punk band" has been in existence 'since the article was created in 2002 [21]'. Only you two weeks ago decided to changed it to "rock band" [22]. When no editors make any changes, that is consensus, and in this case, nobody changed the title description to "rock band" for over 8 years. Only YOU are insisting it be changed.

From the first paragraph of WP:CONSENSUS:

Editors typically reach a consensus as a natural and inherent product of wiki-editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. (boldface mine)

With over 8 years of community exposure, consensus was clearly for either "punk band" or "hardcore punk band". WIth your change to "rock band", within days, several editors reverted your change. [23][24] [25][26]. No editor supports your change. You are 100% out of consensus on this. --Oakshade (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your are being selective in which parts of the history you are showing, and thus several of your claims are false. I was not the one who initally changed the lead sentence from "hardcore punk" to "rock". As I already pointed out on your talk page, it was Tim010987 who did this on Dec. 14, 2 weeks before the first diff you are showing in your comment above. This was following the discussion, which I also linked on your talk page, in which Tim and I had discussed the wording of lead sentences in these types of articles. No one reverted Tim or changed the lead for those 2 weeks, so by your definition there was "silent consensus" for his change, at least among editors who watched or read the article during that time. After 2 weeks Tim changed his mind and re-worded the lead sentence to "punk rock", a change that I disagreed with and reverted. The other diffs you are pointing out are from anonymous IPs and are not actually reverts; each is a unique edit that makes varying changes to the wording and/or capitalization (at least one of which resulted in a redlink). In fact, you are the only one who has consistently been reverted from "rock" to "punk rock", and without any discussion despite my requests for you to take it to the talk page ([27], [28]). Just as my viewpoint alone does not constitute consensus, neither does yours. This needs to be discussed on the article talk page so that other editors can be involved.

There is no "community consensus on a wider scale" in this situation because the wording of the lead sentence in this article has never been discussed. Just because something is one way for a long time does not mean it can never be changed; were this the case, we would never be able to edit any article. The goal of changing the wording was to bring it more into line with WP:LEAD, and it has been my experience that as articles advance through GA and then FA, and the wording is improved to meet the "brilliant prose" requirement, changes like this are fairly standard. This is particularly true in the case of artists whose body of work requires more than one simple genre term to describe. As you can read on the article's talk page, Black Flag's body of work covers several genres including hardcore punk, punk jazz, even spoken word. Therefore "rock band" is the best descriptor to open with to set the context for non-specialist readers. The majority of people in the English-speaking world are likely unfamiliar with the term "hardcore punk", or even "punk rock", at least not nearly as familiar as they are with "rock". Therefore we open with a general descriptor, and we get more specific in the following few sentences of the lead (which the Black Flag article already does). Again, I am happy to discuss this further on the article's talk page where more editors can be involved. Unfortunately our constant reverting of each other has put us both in WP:3RR territory and has now resulted in the article being full-protected, which is just plain stupid over a minor disagreement over 1 or 2 words. We have both been stubborn in this situation; it's time to open this up to a wider pool of editor and actually try to get a consensus, rather than simply assuming prior consensus simply because no one has ever tried to change the wording before. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

8 years is not community consensus on a wide scale? Sorry, that it grossly inaccurate. When an edit is made and nobody challenges it, in this case for over 6 years, that is consensus. Your change was challenged every time you made it. That you feel the majority of the English speaking world doesn't understand what "punk rock" is is your opinion and not consensus'. WP:LEAD in no manner advocates overly general terms to introduce a topic. Every time some tries to edit back what has been there for 6 years, you are the only user reverting. If you want to change WP:CONSENSUS to not determine consensus by edits not being challenged, you need to make your case on the WP:CONSENSUS talk page, not push your agenda to change the definition of consensus on a specific article. That you reverted 4 times in a 24 hour period, thus violating 3RR is your own fault. I welcome a community wide scrutiny on whether your edit was within WP:CONSENSUS or not and will likely open a RFC soon. --Oakshade (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You would be within your rights to do so, but the scrutiny would be on you as well. You reverted just as many times: [29], [30], [31], despite a request to start a discussion on the talk page. Note that in your first revert you claimed that the consensus came from the talk page. My objection to this was because there had been no such discussion on the talk page; the talk page discussion pertained to the infobox, not the lead. So your claim of talk page-based consensus was inaccurate, and your initial change was based on your own opinion. Your new claim, that my edits were against "silent consensus", is a new argument, and as I have noted it is a rather weak one. Editors are allowed (and encouraged) to make good faith edits to articles, and just because they change wording that has been the same for a long time doesn't mean it is "against consensus"; by your logic no one would ever be allowed to improve any wording in any article, merely because "well, no one's changed it before, so...consensus". And even if so-called "silent consensus" were a convincing argument in this case, editors are allowed to challenge such conventions in the interest of improving articles. Also, you are still ignoring the fact that I was not the one who originally changed it to "rock", therefore I was not the one who offended so-called "6 years of consensus". I merely agreed with and supported the change. WP:LEAD does in fact encourage us to use general terms to introduce topics. See WP:LEAD#Opening paragraph: "The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader." Also, WP:LEAD#First sentence content: "If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." We are considering context for the reader here: Black Flag's music encompassed a variety of styles, so we describe them in the lead sentence as a "rock band" and are more specific about the individual styles in later sentences. This wording is easier for non-specialist readers to understand. The fact that you would rather edit-war with me about it and threaten me with RFC than open a discussion on the article's talk page does not reflect well on your methods either. As I have said already, we've both been stubborn and it is clear that there is disagreement here that the 2 of us butting heads is not going to solve. We need to discuss this in on the article's talk page. I am going to start a discussion thread there. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, that's 3. You reverted 4 times. The scrutiny I was referring to was the adherence of WP:CONSENSUS, not 3RR violations. I thought that was clear. As you admit there was not discussion on the lead sentence in talk, WP:CONSENSUS for over 6 years has not advocated changing the "punk" designation in the lead sentence. As you've been shown where consensus has been established after you asked "show me where such consensus has been established", I don't know why you are still arguing. --Oakshade (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I want to make clear that I have no problem with the proposal to change the lead sentence and opening a discussion about it in talk, but I have a very serious problem of just changing the term that WP:CONSENSUS has kept there for over 6 years and reverting all the editors who revert your new change. If you build a consensus for the change in this article, I would have not issue. --Oakshade (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As I have explained, the "silent consensus" argument is incredibly weak here. WP:BOLD and WP:IAR encourage us to make good-faith improvements to articles, which mine were. The fact that it has said one thing for 6 years does not disallow me or anyone else from changing it, particularly since we are talking about a B-class article which by definition needs changes and improvements if it is to be promoted to higher status. My edits were in good faith and meant to improve the article, and as I have pointed out I was not even the one who initially changed it to "rock band". This means that I am not the only one who believes that the current state (which according to you is the same thing as consensus) was not the best, and needed improvement. And of course consensus can change, particularly when the basis for the so-called consensus is merely "it's never been changed before". Good-faith changes like this should not simply be reverted outright on the basis of "silent consensus", they should be discussed on talk pages so that it can be established whether that consensus actually holds. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The "silent consensus" argument weak? The Silence implies consent clause is in the very first paragraph of WP:CONSENSUS. When something is in place for over 6 years it is an extremely strong indication of consensus according to WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus can change, but as every time you made your edit it got reverted by several users, consensus has clearly not changed in this case. You made a good faith effort to what you feel is an improvement of the article, but consensus so far has not agreed. --Oakshade (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)