User talk:IllaZilla

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

Hi, could you vote in this Talk:Siouxsie_and_the_Banshees#Poll_to_Remove_Ratings_info_boxes.-- Carliertwo (talk) 4 September 2012 18:03

Discussion at Talk:Princess Mononoke#GA push?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Princess Mononoke#GA push?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

i put up, now you shut up.

Dude,

Check out the Lincoln bust behind Lawrence Harvey.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IS THAT ENOUGH FOR YOU DOUBTING DUDE???

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

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

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

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

ANI notice

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

User talk:Johncheverly

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

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

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

Barnstar

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

72.186.48.128

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

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

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

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

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

An undo?

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

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

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

BRD project

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

"User:TheMetallican" and sockpuppets

Hello, you were involved in a (now archived) sockpuppetry case involving the above user. While I never had any direct dealings with the above user, a sockpuppet of the above user added an intrusive edit to the Bay Area thrash metal page [1] and shortly thereafer, an autoconfirm, (User:FunnyPatrol99), is persistently trying to sustain the same edit [2], [3]. This is really just an FYI, based on your post on 2601:A:4100:5A:EC7A:ECA5:15F6:C925's talk page. I let an admin know, and am pondering whether to open a new SP case. Thanks, --Danteferno (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Udon for you!

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

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

help request

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

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

Help

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

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

Barnstar

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

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

Hey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:NFCC is policy. I do not require nor desire your permission to enforce it. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

FAC comment

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