Jump to content

User talk:IllaZilla: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Terminator Salvation: move to my page
Line 66: Line 66:


[[User:Alphacatmarnie|Alphacatmarnie]] ([[User talk:Alphacatmarnie|talk]]) 13:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
[[User:Alphacatmarnie|Alphacatmarnie]] ([[User talk:Alphacatmarnie|talk]]) 13:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

==Terminator Salvation==
Hi, you make good points. The way RT is calculated is how Ylee explained it. They simply choose a somewhat arbitrary "I like it" or "I don't recommend it" that the reviewer wishes. So even if a reviewer gave a film a good review, he might say "I don't recommend it". So 33% means that 2/3 of the reviwers said "I don't recommend it" rather than "Go watch it". They didn't say "The movie is awful". They didn't give a negative review. If we go by RT, then 5/10 is more accurate in reflecting that the reviews were mediocre. But "mostly negative" is flat out wrong. [[Special:Contributions/213.8.56.118|213.8.56.118]] ([[User talk:213.8.56.118|talk]]) 18:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:44, 4 December 2011

Why were you using a marginally reliable German chart for the source? CTJF83 20:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't. If you'll look further back in the history, I'm not the one who originally added that source. My reverts have been of editors who change the figure without explanation, making it contradict the cited source. If anyone would care to change out the source for a more reliable one that gives a more accurate figure, that'd be fine, but all we've had so far is people changing the figure without changing the source, which makes the info no longer verifiable from the source it's cited to. This is unacceptable. There's a discussion about this on the article's talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok, my apologies then...I put in a Billboard source earlier. CTJF83 02:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that. Great work. I'd been looking for it to show up on Billboard.com but had trouble finding it. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick to Correct

Im sorry to be forward but who are you and what's your obsession with Atom Willard? The dude is one of my closest friends. yet I can't update anything on him without it being criticized by you. If you work for Wiki then I'm cool with it ... but if you merely have no time on your hands and continually follow AVA and the band members stuff then at least acknowledge a fact. Look it up if you don't believe it. Just frustrating. Im trying to follow rules. Just not sure why you are alerted so quickly. If you are that interested in the information being factual then I would think you would correct it yourself. And it should be caps The HELL. But I have no way to prove that to you without getting into personal communication I have had with my friend. I hope you are getting paid for this ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacolonn (talkcontribs) 06:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I'm a Wikipedia editor, that's all that's relevant.
  2. I don't have an "obsession" with Willard; I edit a lot of music articles (bands/musicians/albums/etc). The article happens to be on my watchlist, and I check my watchlist several times a day. I *have* been a fan of Willard's ever since his days in Rocket from the Crypt, and have followed some of his other acts as well. Alkaline Trio happens to be another of my favorite bands, and I follow both Willard and Matt Skiba on Twitter, so yes I'm aware of The Hell.
  3. Very few people work for or get paid for writing for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is built entirely by volunteers, of which I am one.
  4. If you are a personal friend of Willard then I recommend you read WP:COI.
  5. I have not criticized you. I have edited the article (which is fully within my rights...this is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit") to fix some of the problems with your edits. I stated reasons in my edit summary. Don't be so defensive; you've only made a few edits, and only on 2 occasions (1 in October and the rest all within the last few hours).
  6. I don't "continually follow AVA and the band members"...As previously stated, I have a lot of music-related articles on my watchlist. Willard is the only AVA member whose article is on my watchlist. My interest in him is primarily RFTC-related.
  7. For the capitalization, please see MOS:TM. Wikipedia uses standard English capitalization, not all-caps, even if all-caps is the preference of the trademark holder.
  8. For the Facebook citation, please see WP:FACEBOOK. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources and generally does not accept references to social networking sites. Willard and Skiba are famous musicians, so it shouldn't be hard to find coverage of this project in reliable secondary sources.
If you have any questions or need any assistance, please ask, I'm happy to help. But please try to be civil. The tone of your comment above is rather accusatory. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy Burger

I included the quote, not specifically for its significance for being quoted in the movie. It is one of the great rebellious lyrics of the punk generation, perhaps of all time. The fact that the movie also quoted it, demonstrates its significance. That song, that lyric almost by itself made the career for the Vandals. That's why the passage should be included in the article, the several articles about the band, the song, the album (versions). Trackinfo (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a heavy load of POV you're pushing there. "One of the great rebellious lyrics of the punk generation, perhaps of all time"??? The song is from the debut EP by a humor-based punk band and had almost no impact outside of local punk circles. You would most certainly need to cite reliable third-party sources attesting to the significance of this "great, rebellious" lyric and its significance to the band's career to lend these claims any credibility at all. I'm sorry, but even as a longtime Vandals fan who owns all of their albums (including When in Rome on the original National Trust vinyl), that claim is laughable. I wrote or rewrote most of these Vandals articles back in my early days as a Wikipedian; I really should go back through them & remove the POV & unsourced claims. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snatch

Hi, in the film "Snatch" the term "Irish Traveller's" is never used - in the UK it is used as a politically correct term for their race but generally they accept the term "Gypsy". If you call them "Pikey's" or "Gypo's" they generally go mad as they find it insulting to their race. I have changed the wording to "gyspy encampment" as it is more in term with the film and how the population of the UK know these people. If you can come up with another term or you disagree with the word change then please let me know. Hear from you soon hopefully, --Alphacatmarnie (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of being PC or not: The problem is gypsy links to a disambiguation page, so it isn't helpful to a reader in understanding the context (it's too generic a term). Irish gypsy redirects to Irish Travellers. Pikey would be the most direct link, and that article explains that they are "Irish Travellers, gypsies or people of low social class". The gypsies in the film are clearly Irish: Brad Pitt's character is name Mickey O'Neil, for pete's sake. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pikey it is then! --Alphacatmarnie (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to disagree with your stance here, but I'd rather drop by than just revert - although the article is just a bunch of rehashed plot material, and is therefore of low value to the project, it should be a summary style article encompassing greater depth (mention of Ripley's effect on action protagonists, cultural impact of Hudson, awards won by Henn for playing Newt, etc etc) - and that article would be of much higher importance. I think keeping it at high-importance would hopefully encourage that kind of editing (probably won't though), rather than just writing it off. Thoughts? GRAPPLE X 21:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not going to have any effect anyway. I'm the creator of WP:ALIEN & AFAIK you, Hyliad, & I are the only active members who've actually edited any of the articles in some time. The importance is based on the potential of the article to reach FA (or in this case FL) status, which for a list of characters like this is pretty low as most of the minor characters will not have received significant secondary source coverage. The important characters (Ripley, Ash, etc.) have separate articles in which they are covered in-depth; Those article are of higher importance as they actually have potential to develop into good articles. The character lists were essentially created as dumping grounds, to give the fanboys & IPs who just want character-by-character plot rehashes & death descriptions a playground away from the core film articles. I'm sorry if that sounds cynical/jaded, but as I've watched & worked on these articles for years I speak from experience. There's very little point to these character lists, as the individual characters' roles in the plots are already covered in each of the film articles & the actually important characters have separate articles (let's not get into the Newt business again). --IllaZilla (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do see your point, but I figure it's still worth revisiting the article in the future if and when the separate articles are expanded - a few lines copied and pasted from each to cover critical reception or analysis, etc, would still serve to lift the article up. If there's ever a genuine effort to that effect, it might be worth splitting the article (List of Alien characters and List of minor Alien characters) to shed some of the dead-end stuff and still leave room for a summary style article with proper structure and sourcing. An external link to a wikia site and a stern hand on the undo button would still need to be employed, obviously. I've been considering something similar for WP:TXF, so if that turns out well it might be worth revisiting with this one. GRAPPLE X 22:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Snatch (2)

Hi, just a query on your reversion. In the UK Turkish's business would be called as an amusement arcade and not a casino - such as www.agoraamusements.co.uk who operate small venues like the one Turkish has on a local high street. they are licenced for gambling machines but they are not classed as casino's. Please email me if you disagree or you have alternative term for the article? Regards Alphacatmarnie (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's clear whether Turkish's establishment is legal or illegal, and I'm not familiar with UK business laws or common terminology, but it's pretty clear from what's shown that it's a gambling establishment, aka a casino. I think it's important to establish that it's a gambling establishment as opposed to a video game establishment, so "arcade" is too generic a term considering that Wikipedia has an international readership: Here in the United States for example "arcade" means video game establishment...Street Fighter not pachinko. We do have an article on amusement arcade that says "in some countries, some types of arcades are also legally permitted to provide gambling machines such as slot machines or pachinko machines." Perhaps we should say "gambling arcade" and pipe the link to amusement arcade thusly: [[amusement arcade|gambling arcade]] = gambling arcade. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again sir I bow down to your advice!

Many thanks.

Alphacatmarnie (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]