User talk:IllaZilla

Alien Vs Predator (Jaguar) Reverts

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

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

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

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

Walk Among Us and Image:Walk Among Us.jpg

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

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

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

Joe Escalante

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

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

seeking your opinion on List of heroic stock characters

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

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

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

Silver Reel

On behalf of a grateful project, congrats!

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

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

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

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

Alien vs Predator Revert War

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

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

AFD of Orange County ska scene

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

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

Hello over there

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

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

To the editor at the 210.24.206.xx IP

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

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

Back to the issue at hand. I was not the only editor who believed that the plot summary and in-depth game details in these articles were too much. Several other editors held the same view and also reverted you: [1] [2]. I pointed out the relevant guidelines to you in edit summaries like this one, yet you continued to revert. In your edits beginning this month (like this one), you started to claim things like "don't you know Wikipedia was successful for its detailed plot summaries?" My response to that is threefold:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How you refused my negotiating offer

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gezora

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

Punk WikiProject

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