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
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs)
m Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 30d) to User talk:IllaZilla/Archive 5.
Sean199813 (talk | contribs)
Good Job but...: new section
Line 58: Line 58:


::Whatever, it doesn't actually sound that bad the way you left it. On review it seems like it leaves more information. :) [[User:Lighthead|<b><font color="#CCCC00">'''Lighthead...'''</font></b>]]<span style="text-shadow:#C11B17 8px 8px 8px; font-size: 13pt;"><font color="red">[[User talk:Lighthead|<span style="font-family:Segoe print">'''''KILLS!!'''''</span>]]</font></span> 17:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
::Whatever, it doesn't actually sound that bad the way you left it. On review it seems like it leaves more information. :) [[User:Lighthead|<b><font color="#CCCC00">'''Lighthead...'''</font></b>]]<span style="text-shadow:#C11B17 8px 8px 8px; font-size: 13pt;"><font color="red">[[User talk:Lighthead|<span style="font-family:Segoe print">'''''KILLS!!'''''</span>]]</font></span> 17:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

== Good Job but... ==

As the section title says good job but your attitude is arrogant, not only that but then you tried to lecture someone with no attitude, who was trying to help clean up the Alien creature article, about having an attitude. So in conclusion, keep going but leave the cockiness somewhere else. Because we don't need it here. Sean 11:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:29, 10 August 2012

St. Jimmy

Look, if you really take issue with St. Jimmy, take it to AfD rather than just redirect it yourself. The song is more notable than 90% of the songs out there since it was a B-side and had its own music video. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. WP:NSONGS is the overriding guideline here. There is no evidence that the song has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to support a stand-alone articles. Most of it is a poorly-referenced "plot summary" of the song, and the album's story is already explained at American Idiot#Story. Whether it was a B-side to some other release is irrelevant, as is the music video which wasn't even associated with the album; it was a video of live clips in support of Bullet in a Bible. "St. Jimmy" was not released as a single, did not chart, and has not received significant source coverage apart from sources discussing the album as a whole. It does not merit a stand-alone article, and has been a redirect for almost 2½ years with little dispute. Calling it notable does not make it so, and un-redirecting it to the same state without improving it by adding secondary sources to establish independent nobility is not constructive. You have to prove that it meets the NSONGS criteria; I do not have to prove that it doesn't. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you really think that it isn't notable, go for afd instead of unilaterally redirecting. Don't be a WP:DICK. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The dick move is repeatedly un-redirecting it without addressing any of the reasons it was redirected in the first place. If you really think it's notable, find some secondary sources to show notability instead of unilaterally un-redirecting. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And we are reported here: [1] — TheSpecialUser (TSU) 14:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your opinion on a discussion

Since you've edited Spider-Man related material in the past, I'd like to invite you to share your opinion on this matter (scroll to the bottom; Bruce Campbell section). You are the only person whose input I've requested, and we have disagreed several times in the past so I do not feel this constitutes forum shopping. That said, I do generally respect your opinion, so I'd like to see what you have to say. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

Thank you for helping keep an eye on Prometheus (film)! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --IllaZilla (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Black

I'm sorry, but I have seen many publications in retrospective considering the band Big Black as post-hardcore. Sure, they are punk rock and post-hardcore (at least in it's early form and descendents of that early form) IS punk rock, but I think it could be better if the band could be specified according to the idea of this musical movement. Plus, it is quite obvious that their music was based upon the principles and sonic qualities of hardcore punk but went beyond such dogmatic limitations, thus, I think the post-hardcore term is quite appropiate for the band. Regards, an ex-wikipedia editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.85.5.96 (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll use references all right. This is not vandalism, stop being rude and respond in a civilized manner towards the message I left earlier about Big Black, you should use references as well for the punk rock validation in the page of the aformentioned band (as well). Regards, the ex-wikipedia editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.85.5.96 (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are changing infobox genres across multiple articles without citing any sources, engaging in any discussion, or even leaving any edit summaries. Thus the only conclusion I can draw is that you're changing them to suit your own point of view. The warnings I gave you were perfectly valid, and if you continue this pattern you will wind up blocked. The genres in the infobox of the band article are all discussed and sourced in the section Big Black#Music. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great

Great work contributing on Blink-182. Here's a beer for you! --121.217.78.138 (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --IllaZilla (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Cocktails & Dreams edit

I removed extraneous information about the record company through which works were released, or at least in the case of Fat Wreck Chords. In any case, the information is available at the linked page and I thought it was unnecessary and cluttering the page anyway. I'd like to hear your view one way or another, though. Cheers. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see POV, I thought I saw a good edit.

Could you explain what was POV about the article. Maybe I don't understand punk rock enough; my expertise is in electronic music, although I like punk rock to some extent. I know there's something I'm missing. Lighthead...KILLS!! 16:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP removed information on the Violent Femmes without giving a reason (the edit summary was a vague "more accurately"), leaving only the mention of the Pogues which was already there anyway. Therefore I assumed they removed mention of the Violent Femmes based on some personal bias or point of view (they don't like them, or don't think they were as important as the Pogues). On further investigation, the source cited at the end of the sentence mentions only the Pogues, so I wouldn't fight it if the mention of the Violent Femmes were removed again. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, it doesn't actually sound that bad the way you left it. On review it seems like it leaves more information. :) Lighthead...KILLS!! 17:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job but...

As the section title says good job but your attitude is arrogant, not only that but then you tried to lecture someone with no attitude, who was trying to help clean up the Alien creature article, about having an attitude. So in conclusion, keep going but leave the cockiness somewhere else. Because we don't need it here. Sean 11:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)