User talk:IllaZilla

T.S.O.L. (EP)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are a few other minor notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any sources for release

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

T2 has met a dead end :(

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

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

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

Re: Information Wanted

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

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

Predators (film)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

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

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

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

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

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

Hi

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

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

Personal attacks in edit summaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Devilock

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

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

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

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

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

A cup of coffee for you!

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

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

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

Sharks (band formed 2007)

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

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

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