User talk:IllaZilla: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:36, 16 March 2010

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

CfD nomination of Category:Descendents EPs

I have nominated Category:Descendents EPs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Descendents albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator Salvation Plot Summary

Hi there. I saw that you reverted my edit of the plot tag. The GA review for this article was, apparently, before my time but I still believe the plot summary needs work in terms of word usage. It has, in my view, some unnecessary additional words and overly verbose phrasing and would like to make an effort to bring it down a hair, unless you feel I should not bother at all. As I'm still new to larger edits and movie summaries have become my obsession, I would like to hear any thoughts you have on the matter. I have read the various WP:PLOT related articles on plot summaries in general and the like. But I always welcome any additional resources from ore experienced editors. Thanks in advance. Millahnna (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to take a whack at it. I personally don't feel that it's too long in comparison to the rest of the article, or most of the articles in Category:GA-Class film articles and Category:FA-Class film articles (certainly not long enough that it warrants a {{plot}} tag), but I admit my opinion is probably biased because I wrote the summary. That said, I'm always in favor of trimming down plot summaries where they can be, and in fact I went through all of the Terminator film articles a while back doing just that. So if you feel you can "bring it down a hair" by tightening up the phrasing, etc. then by all means please do. Happy editing! --IllaZilla (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Alkaline Trio EPs

CfD nomination of Category:The Bronx EPs

CfD nomination of Category:Descendents EPs

CfD nomination of Category:Misfits EPs

CfD nomination of Category:Unwritten Law EPs

suggestions needed

hello IllaZilla - i hope it's okay to barge in with a request. we've had some contact in some music-related discussions, so i was hoping you might be able to point me in the right direction for appropriate places to post this "eyes-needed" type announcement: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#a_Pop-music_question_in_need_of_input. i'll keep my eye on your talk page for a reply ... thanks! Sssoul (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
update: i've added it to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music genres page as well, and maybe that will do – thanks! Sssoul (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all; feel free to ask for input anytime! I recommend dropping a line at WP:MUSICIANS. Seems like something they'd be interested in. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you kindly - i'll try posting it over there as well. swing on! Sssoul (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Government Issue

Hi Zilla,

I noticed that you deproded Government Issue, saying that you had several sources for the topic on hand. Would you mind placing them on the article in a "References" section? You can take your time with adding the information from the sources into the article, but I'd really appreicate it if you'd add the citation information for them soon. I just want to make sure there is a sufficient number of independent, reliable sources as I have been unable to find them myself.

Thanks,

Neelix (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. My Masters thesis topic is punk rock, so I've got a lot lying around. Specific to Government Issue, I know they're covered in American Hardcore: A Tribal History (which I recently finished), and probably its accompanying film too. Allmusic has a decent bio. I'll see what I can do for it later on. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zilla,

Thanks for adding some citations to the Government Issue article. Do you know of any more independent, reliable sources which could be included? I like the sources you've added, but I'm still concerned about the band's notability.

Neelix (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain I can find more. I'll take a second look at it. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zilla,

You're doing some great work on the Government Issue article; I look forward to seeing what it becomes. In any case, you've convinced me of the band's notability.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. band moves

Re moves like this one: WP:NCM uses "U.S. band" in its example. Was there a separate discussion that led to these moves? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This probably needs to be discussed somewhere. "U.S." is not a nationality. People from the United States are called Americans. Just as you wouldn't dab a group as an "Australia band", you'd use "Australian band". And in fact the example at NCM is outdated, as I moved X (U.S. band) to X (American band) at about the same time. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use "Australian band" and "German band", but "U.S. band" and "UK band" work too. The word in front of "band" isn't required to be a nationality. I'd also use "Finnish band", not "Finn band", even though people from Finland are called Finns. (And there's some dispute as to whether "American" is a nationality, but that's not why I asked here. See Talk:American, Talk:America if you want to dig in there.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"U.S. band" and "U.K. band" are terrible grammar, as "U.S." and "U.K." are not demonyms. "Canadian", "Finnish", etc. are demonyms. In a sentence you would say "X is an American punk rock band" or "X is a punk rock band from the United States", not "X is a U.S. punk rock band". When we use nationality as a disambiguator in the form "(xxxx band)", we use the demonym of that nation. The common practice seems to be to use demonyms for every country except the United States and United Kingdom, merely because their demonyms (American, British) do not closely match the name of the country (as Finnish does for Finland and Canadian for Canada). This is inconsistent and unnecessary. Debates over "America / American" notwithstanding, the Oxford English Dictionary uses "American" as the demonym for citizens of the United States (see Names for U.S. citizens). Being the English Wikipedia, we should follow this convention. There should be no confusion between this and other nationalities of the Americas, as the other nations have their own unique demonyms (Canadian, Mexican, Panamanian, etc.). In the case of the United Kingdom, "British" should be used (see British people) unless the more specific region is known (Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh, etc., as in "The Sex Pistols are an English punk rock band" or "Stiff Little Fingers are a Northern Irish punk rock band"). --IllaZilla (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about the grammar. U.S. band is no worse than U.S. company or U.S. Army. In any event, please discuss the proposed change on the Wikipedia talk page before implementing it, since it is disputed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Alkaline Trio - This Addiction single cover.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Alkaline Trio - This Addiction single cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me?

I don't have a real WIKIPEDIA account yet but I'm known as Metroid101 on others I created an Alien Series Page on the www.Metroid.wikia.com but It has been nominated for deletion because of Lack of information... you being an Aliens Fan can you help me?

http://metroid.wikia.com/wiki/Alien_Series

is the page... (173.32.186.122 (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, I don't have an account on Wikia; I'm only really familiar with Wikipedia and I prefer to stick to it. As I mentioned in my message on your talk page, I think that drawing any comparisons between Metroid and the Alien series is really just original research. Frankly, it's all coincidental. Other than the fact that both have female heroines who fight aliens in the future, there are very few connections (well, I believe the Ridley monster was named after Ridley Scott, but I can't find a reliable source to back that up). Most of the "connections" you seem to be drawing between the two franchises feel awfully forced and basically coincidental. Like "featured antagonistic computer: see Mother Brain": firstly, there was no antagonistic computer in Alien; the "mother" computer merely relayed messages and followed commands. Secondly, Mother Brain isn't a computer, it's literally a huge living brain. And your "Escape = usually have a Xenomorph in the way"...aren't there pretty much always enemies between the player and the "escape" in video games? And in action movies too? Remember that correlation does not imply causation, which is to say that just because there seem to be some parallels between Alien and Metroid does not mean that the two actually have anything to do with each other. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alien (franchise): prequel film

The art director of the first Alien film stated that the prequel will be shot in 3D. I reworded the original addition to the article (plus minor changes in the paragraph), but I'm not sure if the information should be in the article until it is verified by someone actually involved in the production, which the originator Roger Christian is obviously not. —85.178.66.138 (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll have a look at the source. It'll basically come down to whether it passes WP:RS. As you can imagine there's typically a lot of speculative info out there on the internet when it comes to possible future films. It therefore becomes key for us to make sure all the sources presented are truly reliable in relation to the film. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding

Where do you want to discuss this? I suggest MOS:FILM. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 05:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good place, since that's where WP:FILMCAST is. I might not be able to get into it until tomorrow though. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Bolding_of_cast_sections BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 06:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said in the discussion, "I find it works well when the cast section is formatted as a bulleted list that includes not just simply names, but a decent amount of information on the casting and actors' background." Predator 2 and Alien Resurrection do not have this so-called "amount of information" in their cast sections. What is your excuse for having bold formatting there? Nothing stands out because everything is clustered together, as I try to follow your logic. Erik (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No "excuse" is needed, merely a reason: They should have a decent amount of background information, and they easily could, and I daresay they will as they are improved. Work in progress, remember? Casting details are going to have to be added as these articles move up the quality scale. I could pop in my Alien Resurrection supplemental disc right now and add significant detail to the cast section in that article, and may do just that. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really believe what you say, please remove the bold formatting until you add the information about the actors and their roles. Please also consider presenting the information as prose instead; what we have done in the past is a weird amalgamation of lists and paragraphs. I'm brainstorming behind the scenes of a different way to approach cast sections. For example, we could list the major credits, then have succeeding paragraphs. I've never liked how everything is left-aligned with bullet lists, though, so I used a certain kind of table. See Apt Pupil (film)#Cast. What do you think? Erik (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Predator 2 and bolding

Just to let you know, you've passed your limit for reverts in a 24 hour period. You've already reverted 4 times since this time yesterday. Sometimes, in cases where no content (adding or subtracting) is actually changing on the page, it's best to just leave it be until the discussion has ended. Regardless of what version came first, there's no need getting blocked for 24 hours for something trivial in nature. If your side of the argument prevails, then it's as easy as putting the bolding back. Otherwise, you're treading into dangerous waters if you keep reverting, reverting, reverting, at the drop of a hat. If you get blocked, then it'll be kind of hard to voice your opinion in any discussion until the block expires. Just FYI. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In almost 4 years I have never once been blocked, and would hate to be now, so I'm willing to lay off of it until the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines‎#Bolding of cast sections reaches a consensus. That said, I consider what Erik has been doing to not be in good faith (attempting to enforce his preferred style through revert-warring after having been reverted the first time, even in the midst of a discussion about the issue in which he is a participant), and I hope that someones see fit to give him a similar warning. Bovineboy2008 had the courtesy to stop reverting and initiate discussion, whereas Erik has insited on pushing his change even while discussion is ongoing (even to the point of asking others to make the edit on his behalf). I have absolutely no problem following the consensus if it winds up being against bolding, and I agree with you that in the end it's a trivial issue, but Erik's edits have really been rubbing me the wrong way and making my "undo" trigger finger itchy. I'll be sure to keep cool and wait out the consensus. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Use For a Name

Hello, I saw that you reverted my edits. Not sure where you got your information from, but I was there at the beginning with No Use For A Name, and I remember the morning following the first practice when the members started a new band in Rory Koff's dad's apartment in Sunnyvale, California; within a couple of practices I became the second singer. The original members were Rory Koff, Chris Dodge, Steve Papoutsis, and John Meyer. John Meyer left the band, then Chris Dodge left the band to play with other bands, and then Doug Judd left soon after. We recruited Tony Sly as the new guitarist, and he became also the singer after I left. Hope this helps. Regards, Ramon Gras

By the way, I also have some old practice video of NUFAN with Tony on guitar, Steve on Bass, Rory on Drums, and me on vocals, which I might make available to interested people in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.172.81 (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate your desire to make the article more accurate, but information of this kind must be verifiable throuhg reliable sources. If you could provide a source, such as a magazine article, interview, or biography that goes into detail about the formative stages of the band, then I'd be glad to help you cite that source in the article in order to support your changes. Writing about the formative stages of bands often becomes difficult (I've been doing so on Wikipedia for a while) because early practice lineups and things like that aren't usually covered by reliable sources. Most biographies don't go back further than a group's first recording lineup. But if you've got the sources, I'm happy to help you include them. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP genre warrior

Hey Zilla, because of the high server lag I can't rightly see what this trash metal fan is up to, and how much you have already reversed. After checking a couple of their edits I just started rolling them back, same way I did the other day: the ones I checked had no references or justification. I see that you have done a number of them also; you may have noticed that I placed a level 4 warning right under your long note to them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, and moved the warning up so that it's beneath the level 1 one I gave him a few minutes prior. It looks like you started rolling him back from the top of his contribs list, and I started from the bottom, so between us it appears we got them all (although the database server lag is atrocious for me right now...4,249 seconds! So there may be more recents edits I haven't seen). Every one appeared to be POV-based changes to either genres or "influenced by" bands, and some removal of referenced material. A clear case of rampant POV-editing, all too common in heavy metal-related articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Love

Hi IllaZilla. Please refrain from personal attacks on wikipedia. If there is an issue you're having with another editor, please speak in a neutral voice. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 142: / Line 142: @@
 :I noticed, and moved the warning up so that it's beneath the level 1 one I gave him a few minutes prior. It looks like you started rolling him back from the top of his contribs list, and I started from the bottom, so between us it appears we got them all (although the database server lag is atrocious for me right now...4,249 seconds! So there may be more recents edits I haven't seen). Every one appeared to be POV-based changes to either genres or "influenced by" bands, and some removal of referenced material. A clear case of rampant POV-editing, all too common in heavy metal-related articles. --[[User:IllaZilla|IllaZilla]] ([[User talk:IllaZilla#top|talk]]) 04:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
+== Crash Love ==
+Hi IllaZilla. Please refrain from [[Ad hominem|personal attacks]] on wikipedia. If there is an issue you're having with another editor, please speak in a neutral voice. [[User:Darwin&#39;s Bulldog|Darwin&#39;s Bulldog]] ([[User talk:Darwin&#39;s Bulldog|talk]]) 18:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)