User talk:IllaZilla

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. [1] 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)

Reply to your comment on my page

Sorry; I have a couple of real-life time-consuming issues on my plate right now, and this particular facet of Wikipedia is new to me. I don't think I'll have the time to make a relevant contribution. Magidin (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

IP reported

Hi. In case you were wondering, I've just reported the IP that is adding OR on 21st Century Breakdown to WP:AN/EW. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 23:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Good call. I've requested semi-protection for the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. There don't seem to be any admins available to clear the AIV backlog and get the second IP blocked. And if this guy comes back as a third IP we'll have to consider blocking the whole range. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 23:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection was denied b/c the admin thought blocking the one IP would do it. Wrong, obviously. I've reported the 2nd IP to AIV and re-requested protection, so I don't know that there's any more we can do. The guy's been final-warned already. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope we can get this semi-protected. Otherwise, we'll have to get someone to block the whole IP range, and that is hard to do and used only as a last resort. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 23:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you guys submitted it, I was just going to but... RedSkunk^talk 01:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been done. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

21st Century Breakdown chart positions

Hi IllaZilla. Do you think you could give me a hand at 21st Century Breakdown with the chart positions table? It needs to be essentially redone. The chart names can be shortened, as repeating "albums chart" each time is redundant. I also need sources for any information in it that doesn't have a source right now. Also, I think it would be best to take out all the certifications and sales numbers and put them in a totally different table. I'm really not good with table formatting and finding country album chart sources. So if you have time, I could really use your help on this. Thanks. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 01:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to recall some conversations lately at the albums & musicians projects about where to find sourcing for charts & sales in different countries. I'll look around tomorrow & see what I can find. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Canadian hardcore punk

I've started an article on Canadian hardcore punk if you're interested in helping. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have much expertise on the subject. The sources I have access to only really cover American hardcore (with the exception of some coverage of D.O.A.). I do love Propagandhi, though. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:My Chemical Romance task force articles

I have re-applied the categorisation to the above category. You said that it was already categorised - but it wasn't. I have re-added the sole category for this category. If you wish to delete this categorisation, please replace it with an alternative. Do _NOT_ leave the category without categorisation. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Terminator cast

I've been thinking. In order to curb some of those issues of excessive plot prose in that section, or as you've been finding out the use of fansites with copyvio'd info, what do you think about turning that section into a "Casting" (or something similar) section. This would cut down on space, as the actors can be listed in the plot (I think they already are), and the real world info about the actors/characters can be presented in a prose section. I've found those sections tend to pick up less problems than a "Cast" section that is "Actor as Character". It could be similar to what's at Changeling (film)#Casting. Just a thought.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there's room in a "Casting" section both for paragraphs about the casting process and a list of the primary cast & characters with attendant prose, without it being just more plot. That's what I went for in Alien (film)#Casting and I think it came out pretty well. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You can try one that one, but that's a new form to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Review citations

Will take this into account in the future. Thanks for the heads up. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Film infbox links to country

Hello! The edits I did on the four Terminator films are standard across all film articles. I can see the point about Easter Egg linking, but the template FilmUS (or whatever country the film is from) does two things: i) It links to the main cinema article for that country. Surely it's more useful to link to cinema of the United States instead of just United States on a film article? ii) It also auto-populates the category for that country too. These aren't really Easter Egg links IMO, just as the language parameter in the infobox is used in the same way. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:PIPE, which is part of our manual of style, gives recommendations on keeping links intuitive. The bottom line is that a reader who clicks on the words "Country: United States" will expect to go to the article United States, not Cinema of the United States. It is not appropriate to pipe them to a specialized article in this fashion. It's not the same as the language parameter, because if you are clicking on "Language: English" then you expect to go to an article on the English language (as opposed to, say, the articles on England or English people). Template:Infobox Film does not call for the use of "Cinema of xxxx" templates. In fact it says:

• "Insert the home country or countries of the film's main production companies. Link each country to its appropriate article if possible."

"To its appropriate article", IMO, means United States→United States, not United States→Cinema of the United States. Categorization is quite easily provided without the use of templates, and the best place to provide non-contextual links like "cinema of xxxx" is in a "see also" section, not the infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Alien vs. Predator References

I edited some references to AvP1 and AvP2 which you have deleted. Comment "unreliable fansite". Ok, movie-censoreship is no offical site, but if you only accept offical sites you can deactivate your references. The counterpart of movie-censoreship is www.schnittberichte.com which is the biggest german webside dealing with censorship in the german net (over 40000 visitors a day). Every single report is very detailed and every author puts a lot of work in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.192.229.58 (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That may well be, but it appears as thought the content is user-contributed and thus it does not pass Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. Note that we ask "reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and that "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." We are not asking only for "official sites", but we also will not accept just any random internet site. This does not appear to meet the criteria, as the content can be submitted by anyone (their "staff" lists only translators). If you would like to build consensus as to whether it is a reliable source, please go to WP:FILMS. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you, for your awnser. I postet on WP:Films.

Gone Away

I don't understand your rationale for removing the link to YouTube for The Offspring's Gone Away video. I read your link to what Wikipedia is not and it doesn't seem to apply. What is wrong with including just two links, one to a band-produced video and one to a live video of the song? Musicfan123456789 (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and we have guidelines on what types of external links are appropriate. Links to YouTube are almost always inappropriate, as 90% of the time they are a copyright violation. They are certainly not appropriate to put in the infobox. It would be appropriate to link the official music video if it is hosted on an official site, such as the band's or label's website, where they unquestionably have the rights to host it, but the place to provide that link would be in an "External links" section, not in the infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Dab

Albums and such You have claimed that albums and box sets are different things, but that would contradict the notion behind - e.g. - Category:Box set albums. As WP:NCDAB informs us, disambiguations should be "the generic class that includes the topic." E.g. we have How the West Was Won (Led Zeppelin album) rather than How the West Was Won (2003 Led Zeppelin triple live Compact Disc album). Since box sets are a kind of album, unless we need to disambiguate amongst albums, we should use the more generic title. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Addendum Since you point out the ambiguity of these similarly-titled albums, there may be a reason to make some kind of dab page. You should seek consensus for this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Shyness Clinic redlink

Why do you indicate this is an inappropriate redlink? Redlinks are good, and the fact that you've found sources for the genre indicates it's possible for an article to be created, right? tedder (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The source I found makes only a passing mention; enough to describe them as an emo band, but not enough to start an article. I think it mentions them in a total of 2 sentences. As I said in my edit summary, I highly doubt that anyone's going to create an article on them anytime soon, so there's no point in having a redlink that's just going to sit there forever. While there is certainly nothing wrong with redlinks, they're not inherently "good" either, and really should only be placed if one plans on creating that article sometime soon. WP:RED advises that "when considering adding red links to lists [...] editors are encouraged to write the article first". Also: "Articles should not have red links for topics that are unlikely ever to have articles". --IllaZilla (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Revert in Terminator

Why did you revert? I'm perfectly aware of PLOT. As it reads now there is no sense of flow. You may as well remove it all and say "terminator fail". If you don't like adding a single paragraph, take it to the talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The "sense of flow" is just fine, and the plot section is concise for a reason. There is absolutely no need to go into every detail; all of this is extraneous. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I disagree. I think the plotline describes certain portions of the action and not others. Why, for instance, is it important to know that there is a car chase, but not how the terminator found her? I think both are equally important. I'm re-instating, if you wish to remove it again, take it to the article talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The points included are those that are key to an understanding of the plot. How the Terminator finds Sarah doesn't really impact any of the subsequent events. The car chase is important because it leads to the characters' arrest and the Terminator's attack on the police station, which introduce several key characters. Plus it can be summarized rather easily in a single sentence. The bits about the phone book, the roommate, the dance club, etc. are not really key details and can't be summarized in a concise way, and the plot summary isn't hurt at all by their absence. All that needs to be said is that the Terminator finds her; the how isn't important to understanding the story. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

21st Century Breakdown and Detroit

If you are one of the Wikipedians who think that every detail has to be sourced, fine. But hearing Detroit and The Motor City mentioned over and over on the album is not an "interpretation". I'm sure you mean well, but try to be a little less snarky. Michaelh2001 (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No source, no dice. You hear "motor city" in the lyrics and assume that means the characters Christian & Gloria are from Detroit, yet not a single source has mentioned that. So it's original research. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

So you go from page to page on Wikipedia and remove everything that's unsourced, right? No source, no dice, right? Or just on the 21st Century Breakdown page? I concede the point here, but you might do well to be a little more wag and less bark. Michaelh2001 (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material, particulary original research, may be removed at any time. No editor, myself included, should be reprimanded for doing so. Some would say that it should be marked with a {{fact}} tag, but those are largely ignored and only serve to allow unreferenced claims to remain in articles for inordinate amounts of time before someone has the gumption to actually remove it. This may fly on stub and start-class articles, but 21st Century Breakdown is well-referenced and currently nominated for GA review, so unreferenced claims definitely ought to be kept out. For what it's worth, I've contributed thousands of edits to Wikipedia, created many articles, added sources to many, rewritten several to add numerous sources, and helped advance several to GA and FA. Frankly, I don't care what you might think about my removals of unreferenced info. You've been active here long enough to know you need to provide a source for a substantive claim like this. Funny you should make a dog analogy, as one often feels like a pooper scooper around here. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Your point was valid - and I've said so and corrected it - but your tone was a little shrill. For example, editor Timmeh reverted a change I made and we discussed it and agreed on a change, and I ended up leaving him a barnstar afterword. All I'm saying is, we are ALL volunteers and (aside from trolls) are all trying to make Wikipedia better. Most people arent trying to "poop" on Wikipedia. That said, thanks for all YOU do to make this a great place. Michaelh2001 (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see your point too. Sometimes I can be terse, especially on days when the watchlist piles up with vandalism, OR & the like. Thanks for finding a source. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Cough/Cool

Sorry to piss you off i left a comment noting my sources in the discussion page for cough/cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.217.46 (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Suicide Machines Raritiesa

I have the Essential Kevorkian Cassette and the Skank for Brains album. Where do you want 'em ;)

Oh and by the way, yea you were right about the EP. :P

Fliptopsean (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)