User talk:IllaZilla

Aliens poster

The version I uploaded was the more widely distributed theatrical poster. May I ask why you reverted it? Film Fan (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The previous version has been in place for many years and in my experience is the more commonly-known poster. What proof do you have that the version you uploaded was more widely distributed? --IllaZilla (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

How long it was in place is irrelevant. To be honest, I don't have proof. I just remember. And I doubt there's any way I'll find proof for something like that on the internet. Oh well. Not sure why you're against the change, but it is what it is. Film Fan (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It is relevant: Having gone unchallenged for many years demonstrates that it has general acceptance as the primary poster image. As I said, in my experience it is the more commonly-known image: I see it associated with the film much more often than I see the version you uploaded. Even the site you got the new version from gives the old version as the first out of several. Since you cannot provide any verification that your preferred version is the "primary poster" or was more widely distributed, we will be sticking with the version we have used for years, and that was in place when the article was promoted to GA. In the absence of any proof that your preferred version was "primary" or more widely-distributed, we retain the status quo. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you see this movie theatrically, as I did? Apparently not. And the order of images at impawards is also irrelevant. Impawards doesn't work how you are claiming it does. Check some other films (Juno, for example). This is nothing to do with my personal preference, and apparently everything to do with yours. I changed it because I saw the page and thought: hold on, the posters that I saw on billboards and theaters back in the 80s were not that image. Having done a little search just now, I found that the blue image was recalled just after it was distributed, because Sigourney Weaver didn't like it. It was hence replaced with the image I keep trying to upload. The Wikipedia articles for the other films with on this list do not use the recalled posters, because they were only seen briefly: http://www.moviepostercollectors.com/MPC_Showcase_Recalled.html

For confirmation that this poster was recalled, see Google: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&biw=1366&bih=643&q=aliens+poster+%22recalled%22&oq=aliens+poster+%22recalled%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...837689.839891.0.840513.3.3.0.0.0.0.248.365.2j0j1.3.0...0.0.cUBfo_U9T70

Please stop reverting my changes. I know what I'm doing. It's not about personal preference and I'm not interested in getting into arguments. Film Fan (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Televators

I've put the answer to Cedric's riddle back into the Wikipedia page for Televators. I can cite the OED that Areole is another word for areola if you want, other than that, his lyrics are citation enough. As you have a quote regarding the importance of the specificity and detail of language on your front page, I assume you would be interested in directing people to the fact that there is far more to Cedric's lyrics than simply a bunch of disjointed words. On a more direct note, you should see Pale Fire as regards their official commentary on Deloused. Bixler-Zavala is a grade A modernist writer in a den of half-wits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloomingdedalus (talk • contribs) 14:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it again. Your opinion of Bixler-Zavala's lyrical prowess notwithstanding, the image and lyrics appear random within the article, as they are given no context and there is no sourced discussion in the article of the song's lyrical content or what it has to do with the biohazard symbol. If you have access to sources discussing the meaning of the lyrics and their accompanying symbolism, then by all means use such sources to improve the article. Simply sticking in lyrics and and image doesn't "direct people to the fact that there's more to the lyrics", it just creates confusion. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Prometheus

I just wanted to make sure but this source that Kronaang Dunn is using on the article here is not a valid source right? It's a document uploaded to a cloud storage account. And at least when I checked a couple of hours ago before I went to the Avengers, it wasn't being reported on by anything but fan sites. I mean it might be real but I don't see how it can be used as a source like that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I've been deferring to your expertise on Prometheus. I haven't followed the marketing or promotion cycle since I attended the 20th Century Fox panel at Comic-Con last year. I'm a huge Alien fan, so I feel like I don't need to bother following the announcements or marketing because I already plan to see the film opening weekend. I've got the article on my watchlist, but you seem to have the inside track and a lot of good sources so I've been content watching your work on it progress. On a quick glance, I do agree with you about the document: It cites no authorship, so it's hard to determine if it's reliable. It does carry 20th Century Fox legalese at the end, but no...I'd only feel comfortable covering these details if they were reported on by secondary sources with known reliability (ie. the mainstream film news outlets). --IllaZilla (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I try but people are really a pain with the article. I've had people be pains before but with this, jeez. So many drawn out discussions over the same thing. The Alien template is there at the moment, Dunn is fighting over this document and declaring three cast classed as Engineers as important for no reason than they have Engineer in their name, etc. And I let it go because I'm so sick of dealing with them and their bitching over it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments at Prometheus, I swear to god I've never known so much bitching on an article in my life. Either we aren't letting people turn it into a fan article or its too big. Anyway I installed the script from the article size page and it says the readable prose is only 57kb. It won't count the cast for some reason but even with that it isn't going to be over 70kb and that amount is including the lede, so text wise (6000 words), its perfectly fine if the user continues to bitch. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually the prose is only 37kb, so its super low. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure yet but I might be unwatching Prometheus from Wednesday when it is released in France until Friday when I hopefully will get to watch it. I know someone is going to spoil it, there is always that one person who thinks it makes them awesome to do so and I've waited too long to see it to have someone ruin it for me now. Just letting you know if you are going to keep it on your watchlist that I probably won't be proactively defending it for like 2 days. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I usually avoid articles about upcoming films I want to see, for the same reason. I'll keep it on my watchlist to make sure no one screws it up. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well you don't have to, no point in spoiling it for yourself either. Best thing to do, DO NOT EVEN START reading the edit summaries. Will just mean wading through probably a lot of edits to weed out the idiots on Friday. I'm really going to try for Friday because someone will spoil it elsewhere if not here. I knew who the killers in Scream 4 were two days before it was released anywhere. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Freaking cinemas, how hard is it to release films when you say you are going to ><. Kronaang has at least been considerate about it, even if he is being passive aggressive at the same time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Saw it, amazing and intense. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey oh..

I have nominated Green Day and american Idiot for GA status. Can you see that if there are any problem in that articles and it needs final touch up? Yasht101 16:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed, and I think you made some good improvements. I'll have a look over the articles when I get some time and see if there's anything I can address. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind, can I make you a request. I'll be retiring from wiki now in 2 days and so won't be able to look in the GA review page. So please do keep a watch over it address the issues for me. They 2 articles are my first GA work and I don't want them to be not promoted and also I m retiring so cant help. If it troubles you, may I ask someone else? Yasht101 14:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? It's too bad you're retiring in the midst of a 2-article GA push. I'll put notices up at the Album and Punk Music project talk pages to try to draw more eyes to the reviews. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Not many are active there anymore. Should I withdraw the GA nom? Yasht101 14:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No, let it go forward. There are plenty of active editors at the Albums project, and a few at the Punk project. I'm sure I can get some eyes on it. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the help :) Yasht101 14:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: Laura Grace

What exactly makes you think it's ok to misgender her on her page like that? Her name might not be legally changed and she might not be on hormones yet but that doesn't make it suddenly fine to keep referring to her as a man, which she is not. --Pajipop (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I started discussions on the relevant article talk pages. Feel free to comment there. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If you need any help in WikiProject: Alien don't hesitate to ask.

I've been paying attention to the activity on Aliens-related articles as of late, and I'm seeing a lot of spammers/crappy editors. A lot of IllaZilla has reverted edits by [randomnoobiespammer], which is most of what I see, so if you need any help, I've been an ardent fan of the Aliens franchise for almost 15 years, so don't hesitate to ask mate. --Kluutak (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I award you this barnstar for your amazing work on Tom Gabel's page. You have done such great work in such a short amount of time. Keep it up :) Basilisk4u (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Getting close to the finish line, I think. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I think the main thing left to do is to expand the lead a bit. I'll try to work on it, feel free to change anything that I do. Basilisk4u (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go over the gender transition part too. The RS article has more details on Gabel's transition plans. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• I included this in my draft of the wikiproject punk newsletter. feel free to copyedit it or remove it as you see fit. thanks --Guerillero | My Talk 04:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Project Punk Newsletter: May 2012 (Volume III, Issue II)

Announcements and news for WikiProject Punk music

May 2012: Updates: The project is trying to get a spot in the WikiProject report of The Signpost. For more information check the talk page. The article proposed for Punk music collaboration of the month (as part of WikiWomen's history month) received no substantial edits. If you still wish to get involved more information is available at the talk page The unassessed Punk music articles backlog has been tackled, thanks to pjoef (talk · contribs). Articles Work has been ongoing over the past few months to clean up both halves of the list of punk rock bands Green Day and American Idiot have been nominated for Good Article Status by Yasht101 (talk · contribs) 21st Century Breakdown has been put up for a peer review by TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs) Tom Gabel has been substantially expanded and rewritten by IllaZilla (talk · contribs) Features If you see a picture, article, or list that lives up to the corresponding featured criteria, please nominate it.

Delivered by In actu (Guerillero) on behalf of WikiProject Punk. You are receiving this because your user name is listed in Category:WikiProject Punk music members or on our participants list. If you would like to stop these sorts of updates please remove the userbox from your profile, remove the category from your profile, and/or move your name down to the Inactive/former members section of the participants list. Thanks.

Cheers,

benzband (talk) & Guerillero | My Talk 06:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

h

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I won't let them get me down, thanks for the support. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The Prometheus Alternative

Dear IllaZilla:

Thanks for your notes. You had arguments while noting, instead of just kicking my lengthy contributions within one (!) minute without reading them, twice. This is what others did.

Let see your notes. "calling other editors "Hitler" and "Stalin" - disagree. No one called any of them Hitler or Stalin, see my note for precision. "The content you added is not appropriate for this article" - agree. I made re-writing and I will show this to you. "grammatical errors" - agree. "a lot of" them - disagree. The word "lot" in the phrase covers something else what I did. "original research" - agree, the fault was mine, I placed poor references instead of proving: this is not an original research. "totally unrelated" - disagree. The truth is, with your words, "the 2 are substitutes for each other". The fault was again mine, in the article I failed to prove this clear way. "It would perhaps be appropriate to a separate article about Demme's film" - agree again, and probably I will do it.

However, the biggest problem is, that your Prometheus article does not allow to present that DO exist an alternative of the Scott's movie (as I am ready to prove), and DO there is a way to express the Scott's movie's content on an other path. What your no-alternative-article suggests: think on the film's content that way as the movie does! We are not willing to show you anything else! Though we are neutral, and we are encyclopaedic. Oh please! ...I think a maximum of 4-5 lines subarticle could correct everything, and within 1-2 days I will show it to you, for decision.

Anyhow, dear IllaZilla, there are big differences between visiting editors and editors in power. Editors in power can judge superficial way, visitors can not, editors in powers can refuse the dispute, while visitors can not, and so on, up to at least dozen items. Power can easily distort people. Lots of editors think that he or she is the guard of neutrality and fairness, though, if analyzing this with precision, sometimes they are just the clowns of their selfish power, sorry. You are an exception - though you too very easy way throw the phrase "unsourced claims", "original research", and so on - but you are still an exception, and that's why I addressed this lengthy note to you. Please notify me, that you want to check my re-written short subarticle on the issue, or not.

Yours, Achstein2222y Achstein2222y (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, you are incorrect in presenting Demme's as an "alternative" of Scott's film. This suggest that the 2 are related somehow: that they are different interpretations of the same story or follow the same plot but present themselves differently. Neither is the case. These are 2 very different sci-fi films that just happen to have the same title. Going on about Demme's film in an article about Scott's film is not pertinent. As I said, lengthy discussion of Demme's film should go either in the article about Demme or in a new article about his film. To start one, see Wikipedia:Your first article. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear IllaZilla:

Your are a gentlemen by all means, thanks for your reply. Though I would be able to prove, that the Scott's and the Demme's movies are alternative versions by even your terms, but to elaborate this needs a lot of time, and I do not want to make now my second doctoral thesis. Instead, I wrote a short text, that possibly would be able to inform the public about the other way of thinking on the Scott's issue, and about the other artistic creations on the issue. Please see this proposed subarticle supposed to be placed right after the Sequel section:

Movies with similar content

Zoltan Deme's sci-fi horror film, titled too Prometheus [1], also turns back to the ancient centuries to discover something about the origination and destination of mankind [2]. Tony Harrison's film (titled also Prometheus [3] ) too makes a journey towards the ancient region, but it makes it inside the human soul, searching for, psychoanalytic way, the alien and animal elements of the human psyche [4]. Meanwhile the Prometheus movie [5] of Vlado Kristl, the German filmmaker, observes the difference between the supposed, and the real human being that has very ancient origin, with humor and irony [6].

[1] http://zoltandemmeworks.net/page4temp4.html

[2] Terrence Brown: "Philosopher and Traveler", New York Post, New York City, October 17, 1989.

[3] Mark Ford: "Prometheus by Tony Harrison", London Review of Books, May 13, 1999.

[4] Byrne, Sandie (1997): "Tony Harrison Loiner". Oxford Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-1981-8430-1

[5] http://www.filmportal.de/film/prometheus_8911b8195a8e4294a0c7dbfb575a4949

[6] Christian Schulte (2010): "Vlado Kristl. Die Zerstörung der Systeme", Verbrecher Verlag. ISBN 978-3-935843-94-2

And that is all. I think this resolves perhaps the problem and the Prometheus article will be more informative.

Please tell me what you think.

Yours,

Achstein2222y

Achstein2222y (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

While it's interesting to note films with similar themes, I still strongly disagree that these are, as you say, "alternative films". That phrasing suggests that the films were made with knowledge and intent of one another: that is to say, that Scott was aware of these other films, knew about their themes, and intentionally structured his film around similar themes (or something to that effect). There do not appear to be any reliable sources to verify any concrete connections between Scott's Prometheus film and any of these other films also titled Prometheus. The general idea that they are sci-fi films dealing with questions of the origin of humanity does not mean that they are directly connected, or "alternative versions" of one another, or that a discussion of Scott's film should include discussion of other films titled Prometheus (personally I find the thematic connections not too surprising, considering the nature of the name Prometheus: a Greek myth dealing with the early history of mankind, specifically a titan who gives fire to man).

While the thematic similarities you note are certainly interesting, they are nonetheless original research, which Wikipedia does not deal in. In order to present some connection between Scott's film and these other films, you need to come up with reliable third-party sources that specifically support those connections. Placing the text above into the article would be to de facto suggest connections between these various films and Scott's, connections which the sources themselves do not make. This is considered synthesis: taking various sources and putting them together to advance a claim that the sources themselves do not specifically support.

It is quite possible that, after Prometheus is released, film critics or scholars may draw thematic connections to these other films and publish discussions of such (as many have published discussions of Alien drawing connections between it and prior/subsequent works). However, until such connections are published in reliable third-party sources, it is not appropriate for us to present them on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I hope that is a position you can respect. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear IllaZilla:

You right, your position is respected.

However, all the paragraphs of the article still hide the fact from the eyes of the people, that other noted Prometheus movies exist. More, the title of the article "Prometheus (film)" suggests that this is the Prometheus film of the human history and nothing else. And more, concealing the same-way-titled films, rival movies, violates the Information Act of many countries of the world.

To avoid all of this, why not to list (just simply list) the other noted Prometheus films, in a subarticle this way:

Movies with the same title (or, Films titled same way, or, Other Prometheus movies)

Prometheus, a sci-fi horror movie directed by Zoltan Deme (2012). (Read more, etc., sources, but if you think I can do the list without this additon).

Prometheus, a dramatic movie directed by Lis Anna (2008). (Read more, etc., sources, but if you think I can do the list without this additon).

Prometheus, a psychological movie directed by Tony Harrison (1998). (Read more, etc., sources, but if you think I can do the list without this additon).

Prometheus, an ironical movie directed by Vlado Kristl (1965). (Read more, etc., sources, but if you think I can do the list without additon).

If with no sources, this is not an original research, all the authors recently are present and all the movies recently are mentioned in the Wikipedia. This list complies with the Infomation Act of minimum of twenty major countries of the world (may be more, about 20 I am familiar). Last, but not least, we will not mislead the recently one hundred thousands daily visitors of the article: that, this one, the Scott's one, is the Prometheus movie of the human civilization. I fully respect him and like his jobs, and I am hundred percent sure that he would be the first person who is against of such misleading.

Please, from my part, feel free to discuss this problem with other editors if you wish. You, and your both elegant and deep notes helped a lot to find the looks-like-proper way to enrich this Wikipedia article - because, as I feel, the appropriate resolution is not too far now - and probably you can also see this time, that I am fighting for Wikipedia and not for my private truth and victory.

Yours,

Achstein2222y

Achstein2222y (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you that, by not discussing these other films in an article about Scott's film, Wikipedia is somehow "hiding facts from the eyes of the people" or violating the Freedom of Information act. This certainly isn't some form of information suppression; Wikipedia is in no way legally or morally obligated to provide information on everything, in fact there are a great deal of things Wikipedia deliberately excludes. This is not meant to be an article about all films ever titled Prometheus; it's an article about a specific film. If you believe these other films are notable and can gather some secondary sources that discuss them, you are more than welcome to start articles about them. If that were to happen, we would disambiguate the titles of the various articles in order to distinguish them from each other, for example "Prometheus (1998 film)", "Prometheus (Ridley Scott film)", "Prometheus (Zoltan Deme film)", or some other workable scheme. Since we only have 1 article about a film titled Prometheus at the moment, we use the title "Prometheus (film)" for the article (to disambiguate it from other articles about non-film topics also titled Prometheus). That is in no way meant to imply that this is the only film ever titled Prometheus, but it is the only one Wikipedia has an article about at this time. That can of course change if interested editors like yourself write new articles about other films with the same title.

Wikipedia does not have "subarticles" in the way you are describing: a subsection of the article listing other works of the same or similar title. For that function, Wikipedia has disambiguation pages. In this case we have the page Prometheus (disambiguation); it would certainly be pertinent to list these other films there, under the "Film and television" section, and provide links to the most pertinent extant articles. For example, you could add to that section:

• Prometheus, a 1965 film by Vlado Kristl
• Prometheus, a 1998 film by Tony Harrison
• Prometheus, a 2008 drama film by Lis Anna
• Prometheus, a 2012 science fiction film by Zoltan Deme

That would be a perfectly acceptable way to let readers know there are other films titled Prometheus, even though Wikipedia does not at this time have articles about them. I think we're starting to get on the right track here. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear IllaZilla!

Though I followed your advice and placed in the Prometheus (disambiguation) article the list of the Prometheus movies (exactly as you wrote the text) I am still very strongly disagree on the original issue. There is a long (but well proportioned) article - Prometheus (film) - but with a short and bold reference list of other same-way-titled sci-fi and horror movies we do not make it more informative, fair, and consistent. Thousands of Wikipedia articles on Art, Drama, or Movie have the simple lists of the same-titled masterpieces, and these rather enrich the Wikipedia; but we do not enrich and make more fair this article.

However, the editors will face this problem, as the number of the visitors grows, as I just have seen in the Rev.History site that there are other people also claim this information. I think it would be better to find the proper "wiki" way of placing this reference info somehow into the article, and editors in power, like you, know this way better than me, the visiting editor.

I feel still uncomfortable myself, because I left people on that belief that this is the sole Prometheus film of the civilization. (Disambiguation article does not resolve this problem: only around ten thousands people per day visit that article while one hundred fifty thousand the Scott's movie article). Though I strongly disagree, I'd like to say thanks for you, have nice weekend, nice days and good health.

Yours

Achstein2222y

Achstein2222y (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear IllaZilla!

I just read your notes on the Wikipedia. Let me paste it:

Suspected sockpuppets: Brahsaaaaar10 Petermooo3 Ray222mond Kevinklee

These are all single-purpose accounts making the exact same edit to Prometheus (film): The addition of an "Other Prometheus film" section to the bottom of the article: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Of the 5, only the Kevinklee account has any prior edits (all from 29 October 2010). The nature and content of the edits and arguments are far too similar (nay, identical) to be coincidence. Both Achstein2222y and Ray222mond have accused those who've reverted them of being akin to Hitler, Stalin, and "dictators": [11] [12]. Achstein2222y and Kevinklee have both used the argument that by excluding this section, Wikipedia is somehow violating the Freedom of Information Act: [13] [14] [15]. I've been having a perfectly civil discussion about the issue with Achstein2222y on my talk page, but I can't ignore this sudden flurry of SPAs making nearly identical edits to Achstein2222y's. If these accounts aren't the same person, they're almost certainly in cahoots. IllaZilla (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... You are working hard for the Wikipedia, so please see clear: kevinklee is my lawyer, an expert of international matters. The other guys I do not know who they are, but probably they also feel, that something is wrong with that type of methods of editing of the article what "editors in power" use. Anyhow, today, seeing that how editors in power work, I asked Kevin to help me for the freedom of information. (Yes, still there are people ready to fight for the freedom of information!) Kevin was a visiting contributor of the Wikipedia, but he put the thing aside years ago seeing that the "editors in power" are first of all the cacodamons of power (otherwise this is the reason that the number of editors of Wiki is now less than a half as it was in the previous years: not too much visiting editor wants to become full power editor and work in a team full with dictators, selfish persons fully drunk with their power, so, you will see soon how the Wiki will go down, and that is a very bad thing - however, you are still an exception with your honest and clean attitude when providing intellectual services). Do you think, is that normal, as, for instance, Darkwarriorblake acts, almost with no eating no sleeping just to revert and revert things mainly for his own sake, considering Wikipedia article like his own kid, and becoming sad and agressive if the "kid" is not solely under his will and control? No, the human life means much more, than this.

People loose their reality control beacause of their power many times. I was fully shocked when just surfing on the Internet I saw this Prometheus article about a week ago recognizing that no one knows among the "official" editors, what is happening here. This was the reason I tried to show the other side of the matter, first with a new, later on with three older creations. But nothing you can do, editors follow their feelings, personal judgements (accusing the visitor contributors with promoting in the article films made between 1965-2012!) and, they are happy with their power, they live almost for the joy of this power, and the whole thing now is a life style for them -- while they does not follow the law!!! I asked Kevin, maybe, am I wrong? He said, I am right, and put on some notes to the article. Thrown away, the all. Lets do the rest by Kevin. Freedom and fair information is very important: travel to Cuba or North-Korea, and you will see how this matter is.

The all thing will be not connected to you, you are not drunk because of the power, with your above pasted notes you solely wanted to serve the quality of Wikipedia. I understand you. Though I disagree on the issue, though I see freedom and information problems opposite way as you, I still appreciate your efforts, as you tried to conduct me in the world of the Wikipedia. I am not interested to be an editor, my life goes fully other ways, so probably we never connect each other. But as young guys consider the advices of olders, please think on that to be a visiting editor for couple of weeks, and you will see much more clear the world of Wikipedia, and your activities will make probably much more wealth for the people by this proposed experience.

Be happy, satisfied, and have very good health.

Yours

Achstein2222y

Report it!

Is your name Garry? Just asking because there is (or was) a Facebook page called "Gary Illazilla sucks". I'm not sure if it still exist, it's just a heads up. I saw it as I was browsing pages on Facebook. — ıʇɐʞǝɐdʌɐиƭɐqǝoɟʎouɹqoɐʇ (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, no connection. Ran a quick FB search & didn't find it. Don't know if it was directed at me, but seems to be gone in any case. Thanks for the heads-up. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

WP Punk Music in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Punk Music for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)