User talk:IllaZilla

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)

American Idiot's radio edit is not on iTunes nor Amazon. For some reason, Green Day might not have wanted to sell it. --Largerthanlife147 (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but I really don't care. Apparently it was on the promotional CD sent to radio stations. I'm sure you can download it somewhere on the internet, be it legal or otherwise. I'd appreciate it if you didn't bug me about this again. As I said before, I'm not a radio directory. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

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

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

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

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

Sharks (band formed 2007)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit of Alien Resurection page.

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

Announcements and news for WikiProject Punk music

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

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

 16:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

RS?

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

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

Hey, could you give me some facts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fails to satisfy WP:NALBUMS.

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

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

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

Your last revert

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

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

Falling Idols vs. Juice Bros.

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

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

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

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