User talk:IllaZilla

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by A Nobody (talk • contribs) 18:58, 22 February 2009

great work

Great work cleaning up Talk:List of emo artists. That wasn't easy! tedder (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It sure wasn't. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Emo Barnstar
		For fantastic work on List of emo artists and Talk:List of emo artists, required tenacious skills and Hard Work.

tedder (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Who knew there was an emo barnstar? tedder (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I did, cuz I made it :) Thanx! --IllaZilla (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh :-) The one listed on WP:Barnstars was wrong, so I just put that new image in. Hadn't been awarded one yet, did you? tedder (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I imagine it's rare to be awarded a barnstar that you created yourself. I made the Punk barnstar and the Alien barnstar too, so feel free to give those out to people. I don't think I listed them at WP:Barnstars, though. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Miszabot notice

Hi, what is the purpose of adding Miszabot to every talk page you encounter? Miszabot is used for much used talk pages. To use it for instance at Talk:Sulaco (spaceship) is kind of pointless since it only had three comments since it's creation. Garion96 (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the same counts for {{talkheader}}, see the instructions on the template. It should only be used if needed. So it is needed on Talk:George W Bush but not needed for talk:Val Verde. Garion96 (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I only did it to the pages within the scope of WP:ALIEN. As the project coordinator, I find myself doing archiving and archive cleanups regularly and it can get tedious to do manually. Although most of these pages do not presently really need archiving, one assumes (or hopes, anyway) that they will as the articles are moved towards GA/FA & the pages become more active. Obviously the bot won't do anything if the page is empty. In the Sulaco case, even though there are only 3 threads, I would have probably archived the first 2 manually anyway as they are 2-3 years old. Putting the bot in place saves me the bother of checking on these things manually. Archive intervals can always be adjusted for less active pages. And having the talkheader never hurts. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So editors coming to the talk page have to go to the archives to see if anything was discussed before? Even if it were only three comments? That really is unpractical. If the talk pages becomes active it can be turned on but right now it serves no purpose. Regarding {{talkheader}}, consensus is against using it on every page. Like also was discussed in the last TFD of the template. Garion96 (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, the archive intervals and "minthreadsleft" fields can be adjusted for the less active pages so that the few threads that are present are not archived immediately. The default for "minthreadsleft" is, I think, 5. Putting the code in place now means I don't have to do it again later. Feel free to adjust any that you think are inappropriate. I don't see the point of keeping a thread from 2005 on the active discussion page, for example, as the issue it addresses is probably long stale. Any topic that old would be worth re-raising in a new thread anyway if it were still an issue. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And I don't see the point of archiving when there basically is nothing to archive. I will check/ask for more input. Garion96 (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I was probably just being overzealous, as I'm a fan of auto-archiving and I wanted to standardize things across the Alien project. I won't object if you want to revert me on any pages where you feel it's unnecessary, and I'll be less gung-ho about it in the future. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Saw your comment too late, I already asked. Oh well..I am curious anyway to what other editors think. Garion96 (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding the bot. I just saw you added it again at Talk:Aliens (film). One talk archives in 3 years. There really is no need for a bot there. It's more hurtful even since discussions are archived way too soon. There is a need for a bot at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not but not at Talk:Aliens (film). Garion96 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I think you are being a bit overzealous as well. By "I won't object..." I did not mean "go through all of my contributions and remove the bot and talkheaders from every talk page I have contributed to". Some of the pages you removed talkheaders from have had histories of problems with forum-style comments, unsigned comments, civility, OR, etc...all the things the header is designed to notify new contributors of. The header also contains the links to the archive pages, and your blanket removal of it removed archive links from several pages. Talk:Alien (Alien franchise), for example, is an active page with 230K worth of archives already. Please don't remove the talkheader without actually checking the history of the page to see if it is in fact warranted, and without adding an archive box if the page already has archives. I have had experience with all of these talk pages, so I am aware of which ones probably warrant the headers. Simply blanket removing them from every page is not the right course of action (any more than it was of me to add them to every page).

Also, the bot wouldn't archive things "way too soon", at least not since I blanked all of the "minthreadsleft" parameters. It would always leave 5 discussions on the page, even if they hadn't been active for the amount of time that the algorithm is set for. The bot has these customizeable parameters for a reason. You may be right about it not being necessary at Talk:Aliens (film) (at least not currently), but there are other pages where it is quite useful. It is not exclusively for the highest-use pages like Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, actually it is only for high use pages (or user talk), not for pages with only 1 archive in 3 years time. See also Talk:Misfits (band). 90 kb of archives in 4 years is next to nothing. Regarding talk headers, yes, it was a bad idea when they added archives to the template. I thought I checked it if they had an archive before I removed it but obviously missed some. Garion96 (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect, you missed them all. On not a single page where you removed the talkheader did you replace it with an archive box if necessary. And nowhere on the Miszabot howto page does it say that it is exclusively for high-use pages. The bot merely automates a process that would otherwise be done manually. Even if some of these pages only had a few comments on them, I would probably have manually archived the comments that were 2-3+ years old anwyay. I'm fine with leaving it off of the majority of the pages in question, as I admit I had been overzealous in applying the bot and these pages really didn't need it. However, the pages that are decently active and have been using the bot for a while (8 months or more for some of the ones you removed it from) are doing just fine with it; in those cases it is merely automating a process that I or others would be doing manually. I've even been thanked occasionally for taking on the task of cleaning up & archiving some of these talk pages. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

←No, on places where I realised the talkarchive was used for the arhive I simply did not remove the header. See [1]. Nonetheless I admit I removed it incorrectly a couple of times. Garion96 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple? No, you in fact did it 14 times: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. In each of these edits your removal of the talkheader removed the only link to the page's archive, and you did not replace it with any other link to said archive. Look, I'm not green at this; the obvious impression is that you simply went through my contributions and removed both the bot and header from nearly every talk page I've contributed to in the last few days, without actually checking the content or history of most of the pages to see if either the bot or header were warranted. I've contributed to all of these talk pages, most with some regularity. I realize that you don't care much for automated archiving, and that I implemented it in a number of places where it really didn't need to be implemented, but perhaps you could grant me the benefit of the doubt in the cases of pages where I'm not only a regular contributor, but the primary editor doing the maintenance work (whereas you have never contributed to these pages except in this recent anti-bot/header campaign). I'm not trying to offend, I'm merely pointing out that I actually do know what I'm doing in most of these cases and that the bot/header were being used appropriately on a number of the pages you removed them from. Talk:Aliens (film), for example, had been using the bot for archiving for 8 months without a single complaint until you came along and removed it outright, and never did it archive excessively. It was being used exactly as it was intended: as a tool for performing an action that is tedious to do by hand. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course I went through your edits and did that. That one is kind of obvious. I believe that you do know what you're doing. If however I see this kind of edit, I am starting to doubt that in some cases though. Which lead me to the removal of many bot and talkheader pages. I also don't expect many complaints from having a pointless bot on a page, especially if it is a quiet talk page with only one edit per month or so.... Nevertheless I admit I removed talkheader too much, I didn't realised/saw that it also was used as the talk archive. I did checked for the amount of edits though and on every one of these pages the bot was still completely unnecessary. Also, creating a yearly archive is not tedious or hard plus many editors like to read the talk page if they are interested in on article. No need to point them to an archive when it is not necessary. Garion96 (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm satisfied with where things are at now so I'm willing to drop it & move on. From now on I won't implement the bot without asking on the talk page first, and I'll keep it to the more active pages. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject My Chemical Romance/Invite

Hi IllaZilla. I deleted the above page. For future reference, when you tag any sort of page that is transcluded in others (such as the above page and all templates), please place the CSD notice in noinclude tags (<noinclude>csd notice</noinclude>) so that all of the pages transcluding the page marked for speedy deletion are not also placed in CAT:CSD. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Used discussion FYI

Check out this discussion.. thanks! tedder (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Our Emo Edit War

I mean it all in good fun just so ya know. :) But I do think it's too long and rambles too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimzy1990 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a playground, and I don't find having to revert your repeated POV-based edits to be "good fun". You seem to be laboring under the delusion that emo did not exist before 2002, despite the multitude of reliable sources to the contrary. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Gee a bit anal eh? I'm trying to be nice. And yes it did exist before 2002, but it was hardly noteworthy. It's not like it's been well-known for 25 years. Mimzy1990 (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of the stuff that happened before 2002 was noteworthy, and it's important to the history. Notability does not limit article content, and details of the history are important to an encyclopedic treatment of the topic. We wouldn't cut out everything in Adolph Hitler's biography prior to 1920 just because he wasn't well-known before then. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess my problem is most other genres don't get so much attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimzy1990 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Then you're welcome to work on those genre articles that you find lacking. The fact that other articles aren't given the same attention isn't a reason to dumb down the emo article, it's a reason to improve those other articles. Go do some research, gather some sources, and get on it. Punk rock is currently the only Featured music genre article, and that's a sad state of affairs. My goal is to get emo up to at least Good Article status. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

project deletion

Hi for Wikipedia:WikiProject Senses Fail Wikipedia:WikiProject Panic! at the Disco would it not be better to leave a redirect? there is a fair bit of history, and there are incoming links too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There are almost no incoming links from the mainspace (article talk pages, etc), since they came mainly via the project templates and those no longer exist. I don't see the point in a redirect nor a need to keep the history...if these ever were to come back, it would be in task force form and would have to be built from the ground up anyway in a subpage of a parent project. I don't see any need to keep the histories of projects that no longer exist and aren't likely to ever be resurrected. Perhaps I could move the talk pages into subpages of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Emo just to keep the discussion threads archived. There isn't any other content on the project pages that couldn't be rebuilt just by using the task force creation template, which is what would happen anyway if anyone expressed an interest in launching new task forces for these topics. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that User:Dank deleted and restored, and decided it should go to a XfD if you want to terminate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Green Day

I saw your revert of my edit. Perhaps next time you could have just deleted the error and left the rest. It is widely accepted that 21st Century Breakdown is a concept album. Thats not a derogatory term and a valid Category. Thanks! Michaelh2001 (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, I did not mean to revert that bit. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Nekromantix

Can you PLEASE stop undo'ing my changes?? We had this discussion 2 years ago. Name mispellings all over the place, wrong terms (made up by you) all over the place. If anything it would be close to an "Upright Bass" NOT "Double Bass" due to the way you pick it up. "Coffin Bass" is not just a brand but a constructual design which puts this instrument in its own category: "Coffin Bass". Your previous ignorance regarding real facts has resulted in faulty information about this bands history and names has spread on the internet. Please refrain from undoing if you arent even interested in this band. KimNekroman (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm interested in the band, or I wouldn't bother contributing to the article, would I? I have all of the albums and have recommended them to friends. That's what led me to try to improve the wikipedia article in the first place. Before I came along it looked like this. Pretty basic from Wikipedia's standards. I've been contributing to Wikipedia for several years and I know a lot about how it works and what its standards are, so I know what I'm doing. Let me try to address the specific problems we seem to disagree on:

• The website: Are you no longer using http://www.nekromantix.com/? I realize it hasn't been updated in a long time, and most of your updates come from Myspace, but if nekromantix.com still exists then technically it's still your "official" website. http://www.myspace.com/nekromantix is your MySpace profile, not an official website (the website is MySpace, your portion is a profile on myspace...in the same way that each article on Wikipedia is not a site unto itself; Wikipedia is the site). I suppose we can keep the myspace in the infobox, since it's current whereas the old website seems to be defunct, but I should probably note in the "external links" section that the official site is out of date.
• The coffin bass. First of all, "a built by himself upright bass" is bad grammar, as "built by himself" is not an adjective. "Custom" is an adjective, and is accurate, as it means "made or modified to personal taste". You made the coffin bass yourself, to your own specifications. Therefore it is a custom instrument. This is a perfectly accurate description and is simply good English. The very first paragraph of the history explains how you made it, so it's not like anybody is going to think that it was made by someone else.
• The correct term is "double bass". Notice that there is no article for the term upright bass; it is a redirect to double bass. "Coffin bass" is a term that does not exist outside the context of Nekromantix. Just because it has a "unique constructual design" does not change the classification of instrument. The Fender Jag-Stang is a custom-built electric guitar with a unique structural design, but it's still an electric guitar. Gene Simmons' axe-shaped bass and Jerry Only's "devastator" are still bass guitars, even though they have unique structural designs. The lead paragraph and the history both describe the coffin bass and why it's called that; the personnel listing provides useful links to the instruments each member plays. It should therefore link to double bass, otherwise it's not helpful to readers at all.
• "Mesa" vs. "Meza": Music from Regions Beyond lists his name as "James Meza". So does Tiger Army's myspace and their official website. I have to respecfully disagree that I'm spelling it wrong. Did he leave Nekromantix for Tiger Army, or did he leave Nekromantix and join Tiger Army later? I'll probably just reword that bit. It's perfectly accurate to say that he became Tiger Army's drummer because, well, that's a verifiable fact.
• You also removed the mentions that Peter Sandorff left to pursue a degree in architecture, even though that's referenced to a reliable source (this one). I don't understand why you keep removing it. Same thing with the fact that Pete Belair went back to Australia...Your very own myspace post is the source for that. Why do you insist on removing it? The reader is going to wonder what happened to these people. They didn't vanish into thin air, and as long as we have verifiable sources to explain why they left and/or where they went afterwards, it's worth noting those details.
• You keep removing the mention that you use the name "Gaarde" for songwriting credits. Why? This is an easily verfiable fact; the name is in all of your albums, and again your own myspace post (which obviously was written in part due to our discussions 2 years ago) is the source. Why do you insist on removing info that you yourself are making public on your own website?
• Wrong terms made up by me? I don't see any.

With all due respect, I am doing my best in good faith to keep the article accurate. I am fan of your band and your music, and I hope to see you play the next time you are in my city. I'm also a Wikipedian, though, and therefore with respect to Wikipedia I have to do the best I can using the source material available. The best way for you to help make the Nekromantix article more accurate would be to provide links to secondary sources that have written about the band: music magazines, reliable websites, books, etc. You could even give us some links to interviews. I would gladly use such sources to help make the article more accurate and keep it within Wikipedia's standards. It's my hope that it can become a good article or even featured article someday, but I haven't been able to find enough secondary source material on my own. If you could contribute any sources you have to the article's talk page that would be extremely helpful, and help to avoide the appearance of a conflict of interest. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

1. The website www.nekromantix.com has been defunct for a while. Look at the last update and you will discover 2006 as last revised. The bands Myspace now functions as official website, just like many other bands use Myspace as their only site.
2. Peter Sandorff did not leave the band for the reason that you insist on stating. Pete Belair never left Australia it even explains that in the link to Nekromantix myspace that you yourself provide. This is a good example of how you twist the truth and facts. If you really had any interest it is easy to find information about Peter Sandorff left to form his own band originally. Second time he left was to join german Psychobilly band Mad Sin...but I guess writing the correct information means real research other than picking the first two Google options that comes up.
3. The "z" in Mesa is yet another example of you misunderstanding what is a "real" name and what is a "stage" name.
4. Sadly the interviews that are refered to, got their wrong information from this very site because you originally used unreliable sources.
5. Please do not try to teach me correct grammar as there is already several wrong use of english grammar on this site about Nekromantix.
6. What makes you say that "(this one)" is a reliable source? It is a random German site with absolutely no affiliation to the band, yet you choose to call it a reliable source..what do you base that on?
7. What more reliable source than the website of the band could you ask for?
8. The name "Gaarde" is being used by several persons as synonym in regard to songwriting credit and yet you wrongly informs that it is used by Kim Nekroman. You should do your research before publishing information that has more facets to it.
9. How come you dont undo ALL my changes?
10. You also failed to change guitar membershift yet you added drummermembershift?
11. I have a hard time taking your Wikipedia work serious when you add a band like "Chop Tops" as related to the Nekromantix...please explain that?
12. The term "double bass" is not a widely accepted term. The correct term is Upright bass or Contrabass. The Coffin Bass is not an acoustic instrument and the correct term would be "electric upright bass" if you really wanna go into detail the measurement of the Coffin Bass puts it in another bass instrumentment category that doesn't exist, therefore the correct term here would be Coffin Bass. Your guitar example doesn't really apply here since a stringed instrument (bass and guitar) is categorized by many other factors such as size, scale length etc.
13. I am not gonna waste much more time on explaining what is right and will cont. to correct this site. --KimNekroman (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In order to better respond to your individual points, I have numbered them and will provide responses below:

1. That's fine, and you'll notice that I left the myspace as the site listed in the infobox, and I noted in the "external links" section that the old official website is out of date (however it still contains useful info up to 2006 so I felt the link worth keeping there).
2. The source cited states that Peter Sandorff left the band to study architecture. In the absence of any better reliable sources I have to go based on that. It is not my fault if there are not more accurate sources available; I did not merely pick the first 2 google hits. I searched through pages of search results and that was the most detailed source I could find that seemed both reliable and third-party.
3. I am aware of the difference between real names and pseudonyms, thanks. Everywhere I have looked up his name (album credits, band websites, etc.) it's spelled with a "z", so I went with that. Most of the members of Nekromantix over the years have used pseudonyms, so I don't see why you have a problem with James being listed by his. If I had a reliable source giving his real name, I would cite it. But again, I searched several of the most likely places and they all used a "z".
4. Actually, most of the sources cited predate the information in the wikipedia article. You assume that they are getting their erroneous information from wikipedia, whereas I think it's the other way around. This source, for example (the one that referred to you as "Dan Gaarde") is dated April 19, 2007. This is what the Wikipedia article on Nekromantix looked like at that time. Note there is no mention of "Gaarde" at all. I've gone through the article's history and this is the earliest mention I can find of the Dan Gaarde thing, and it's from 2004. User:Inanechild appears to be the one who put it there, so I suggest you take it up with him since that seems to have been the source of the problem (though he doesn't appear to have edited Wikipedia since September, so I doubt he's still around on the site). The Dan Gaarde bit was removed by someone else in August 2006, 8 months before the EU Jacksonville article wzs published. If they were getting the name from Wikipedia, they must have gotten it sometime between 2004 and 2006. In any case it's certainly not my fault, since my first edit to the article wasn't until July 2007. I came across the Dan Gaarde name in the EU Jacksonville article, after having searched for the name in connection with Nekromantix. It seemed like a reliable source at the time. Obviously it was erroneous.
5. Could you give some examples? I'd be happy to fix any incorrect grammar, or to request a copyeditor review the article. That particular example I gave was grammatically incorrect, however.
6. It seems like no matter what sources turn up, if you're not in control of them you call them inaccurate and unreliable. Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources alone. This seems pretty reliable: it's an extensive review, gives a lot of background on the band, and even has quotes from you in it. Are you suggesting that it's fabricated? I don't read or speak German, so I'd have to request someone who does to review the site and see if it meets Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources (editorial oversight, established history in the field, etc.). There aren't a hell of a lot of good online sources that give the full history of Nekromantix, so I had to go with what few reliable sources I could find. As for Pete Belair, I assume he left Australia in order to tour with Nekromantix. The article does not state anywhere that he moved away from Australia, it merely says that he went back to Australia after touring with Nekromantix, which is what your myspace post says: "Since Pete lives in Australia and intend to keep on doing so, we had to look for a permanent more local guitarist."
7. Secondary sources, ideally. Established music publications, journalists, interviews, etc. As I've said before, Wikipedia relies primarily on secondary sources. Plus the band's website does not have the level of detail that's needed to write an accurate history of the band. If it did, I wouldn't have to do all of this searching. Wikipedia is looking for higher-caliber sources than Myspaces and blog posts.
8. You never before mentioned that the name Gaarde is used by multiple persons for songwriting credit. In fact your very own myspace post says that it's your songwriting pseudonym. If I may quote: "It is correct that 'Gaarde' is Kim Nekroman's alias when registering songs but wrong that assume that it is his real/legal name." What more research do you expect me to do, when your own blog post says that it's your pseudonym? You're asking me "What more reliable source than the website of the band could you ask for?", and yet this information that you say is incorrect is coming from your very own website.
9. Because not all of your changes needed undoing. Just because I disagree with some of your edits doesn't mean I disagree with all of them.
10. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Here was my latest revision to the article, and it mentions all of the recent changes: James to Andy to Lux, and Troy to Pete to Franc. I even created a new portion of the lineups table reflecting the new lineup. Was there a change in there that I missed? Your myspace post says that Franc's been with the band since December. Is that accurate?
11. I'm not the one who put The Chop Tops as an "associated act", That was done last February by User:StompinPomp. I was not paying much attention to the article at the time and probably didn't notice. He probably put them there because their article says that they've toured with Nekromantix quite a bit. Note that in my latest revision I left them out. Not everything that goes into the article is my fault; Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, even random anonymous people who may add incorrect information. That's why we insist on reliable sources so much. Even so, we're all volunteers here and sometimes things slip through the cracks.
12. "Double bass" is evidently a widely enough accepted term that that's what the Wikipedia article is titled. If you have a problem with that I suggest you take it up over on that article. It looks like they're getting their info from a number of books on music theory & practice. This is really a semantic argument; it's true that people call it by various names (double bass, upright bass, contrabass, stand-up bass), it was simply made "double bass" in order to avoid redirects in the links. By "it's not an acoustic instrument" I assume you mean that it uses bass instrument amplification. Even so that wouldn't change the type of instrument that it is. I'm not very knowledgeable about instruments so I'll take your word for it about the measurements, etc. but I still think it's worth linking our readers to the article on double bass so that they can have some context and understanding of what family of instruments the coffin bass belongs to, even if its construction sets it apart from the typical instruments in that family.
13. Your contributions are appreciated, but keep in mind that you do not own this article. If it's apparent that you're editing it with a conflict of interest then I'll have to seek mediation through more formal channels. It must obviously comply with our policies on biographies of living persons but as long as it sticks to reliable source material then it is doing just that.

Again, I appreciate your point of view on things and I'm sorry for anything in the article that's grossly inaccurate, but please keep in mind that I'm just one of dozens (if not hundreds) of people who've contributed to this article since it was started in 2004. I'm doing my best to keep it in line with Wikipedia's core policies such as verifiability and neutral point of view, but I can't be held responsible for every bit of text that's in there. I ask you to assume good faith on my part and not jump down my throat about information that comes from sources that appear to be reasonably reliable. I cannot help it if there are not an abundance of high-quality secondary sources easily available that meet your satisfaction. At the end of the day, however, this is an encyclopedia and the standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. I can hardly be berated to going to the effort find sources and then using those sources to verify the article's contents. I ask that we continue this discussion at Talk:Nekromantix; having it here is not all that helpful because other editors who may watch the article are not seeing it. I'm going to transpose it there so we can continue in a more public forum. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Green Day 21 Guns

I reverted your re-route, because it is officially reported on FMQB that this song will indeed impact Modern Rock radio on May 25, 2009. [16] Thanks. Joberooni (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as it's referenced in the article. My objection was that the entire article was based on a single piece of cover artwork, so it was pretty blatantly original research & crystal ball-ishness in that form. This source makes a much better case for starting an article, though I think it should be moved to 21 Guns (song) since there are no other song artilces by that title (see WP:MOSDAB). --IllaZilla (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding my edits

Lately you have been reverting my edits which remove the lyrics and music credits from 21st Century Breakdown. I think it is pretty obvious that all songs are Green Day songs unless otherwise noted. There is really no need to credit Billie Joe Armstrong and Green Day for every single bonus song. I even noted it at the beginning of the track list that all songs are by Billie Joe Armstrong / Green Day unless otherwise noted, which makes sense to me. Is there any way the article is enhanced by adding lyrics and music credits to just the bonus tracks? The way it is on the article now seems to make perfect sense. – Zntrip 06:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The main track listing refers only to the standard album tracklist (the part that's not collapsed). The bonus tracks, etc. are not really part of the album proper; hence the separate subsection. Since the bonus tracks are not all credited to Green Day (being that several are covers), it makes more sense to give the writing credits separately in each of the separate collapsed lists. Basically what I'm saying is that the main tracklist and the "bonus tracks" should be considered separately, hence the various bonus track tables ought to have their own individual writing credits. I had thought of simply using the "all music/all lyrics" parameters in each template, but it displays these above the template even when it's collapsed and, well, it didn't look good. Saying "all songs by Armstrong/Green Day unless otherwise noted" above the main tracklist just doesn't feel right to me, because it gives the impression that there are some songs on 21st Century Breakdown that aren't by them, and that's not really true. The only songs that aren't by Green Day are the the iTunes bonus tracks, and aren't really part of the album per se (in fact if you look them up on iTunes they even say "Non-Album Track"). So using the "all songs by Green Day except..." isn't really accurate, because those "except" songs aren't actually part of the album. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The message at the beginning to the section clearly refers to all the songs in the entire section. After all it says "all songs" not just "all songs on the album". When there is a simpler way to communicate information we should use it, instead of repeating it over and over. People who reads the article are unaware of the templates and I'm sure the meaning of the lead sentence is clear to them as it is to you. Furthermore by giving credit to the non-Green Day songs, it is assumed that the other songs are actually by the band; the message at the top clears up any confusion, although I am certain none exists. If you still disagree I suggest you ask another editor for a third-party opinion, because I am unconvinced with your reasoning. – Zntrip 19:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the most sensible solution is to have the "except where noted" bit be above the bonus track templates. Leave the main tracklist as "all lyrics by Armstrong, all music by Green Day", because that's the case: All of the lyrics to 21st Century Breakdown were written by Armstrong, and all of the music was written by Green Day. The article is, after all, about the album; the b-sides & bonus tracks etc. are merely useful ancilliary info. There's a reason they have a separate subsection and are hidden. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I think this is the most sensible solution. – Zntrip 20:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Undoing NHL 2009 refs all the time

So please explain me why you keep removing any reference to Millencolin's song (Done is Done) appearing in the NHL 2009 game? The first time I can understand (point of view reference), but the second time was simply stating a fact. Would it be ok if it was a reference of the song appearing in a movie? You know the game industry is bigger than the movie industry these days, right? It is relevant and should stay up there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverikster (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be referenced, and it also needs to be significant. It's frankly not significant to the main article about the band; many of their songs have "appeared" in many different contexts: films, games, compilations, TV shows, etc. ("were used in" is a much better phrase, by the way, it's not like they just randomly popped up there by complete coincidence...someone licensed the song and then placed it in the soundtrack deliberately). It would be much more pertinent to the Machine 15 article, if anywhere. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD List of fictional narcissists and your comments thereof

What is your rationale for deleting this pertinent and relevant article and who is this person of whom you accuse me of being a sockpuppet? --Dominus Noster (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The article's being "pertinent and relevant" is entirely your opinion, and I gave a perfectly valid rationale in my !vote: I believe it to be inherently POV and impossible to source accurately. As for the the other, I have a strong suspicion that you are a sockpuppet of blocked user Jupiter Optimus Maximus (aka Illustrious One, aka YourLord) for the following reasons:

• Your contribution history is extremely similar to his, with nearly identical patterns (unreferenced psychoanalysis of fictional characters, adding categories related to such, etc.).
• Your first contribution being the creation of List of fictional narcissists fits JOM's MO to a T, and matches his past patterns. I'm not in the least surprised to see that the list is populated entirely by JOM's favorite characters. Tthey are all articles that he used to edit war on over fictional foo categories...Category:Fictional narcissists not surprisingly among them. Since these categories were speedily deleted each time he recreated them, it wouldn't suprise me that his next move would be to do the same thing but in list ariticle form.
• You identify as being 18 and being from Chester, England. JOM also identified as being 18, and all of his previous IPs trace to the same general area (Manchester, Liverpool, & Chester, which are adjacent to each other).

There is clearly enough of a similarity here for me to consider opening up a sockpuppet investigation, but I've asked around for second opinions first. If you're not the same person, then I apologize in advance but you can see how my suspicions are reasonable. Of course if you are JOM, then you well know why I can recognize your patterns. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it's my opinion is totally irrelevant, my opinion is correct. With regards to the sockpuppetry, thank you for being fairminded but other than a passion for fiction and psychology, I don't really see any similarities between my editing patterns and JOM's. You seem to have something of an obsession with this person so it's quite possible that your judgement is clouded. Note also that JOM identified as being seventeen, not eighteen. --Dominus Noster (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)