Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:53, 30 October 2012

I like to keep conversations in one place. If you make a comment here, I'll reply here, so keep an eye on this page for my response. If I left a comment on your talk page, I'll be watching it awhile, so just respond to it there.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Poll to Remove Ratings info boxes for all the Siouxsie and the Banshees albums

Hi, could you vote in this Talk:Siouxsie_and_the_Banshees#Poll_to_Remove_Ratings_info_boxes.-- Carliertwo (talk) 4 September 2012 18:03

help request

Hello, I noticed you left a message on a users page for acting in a way that could be considered edit warring. the same user has been causing trouble on the following page - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bio_Booster_Armor_Guyver&curid=2060496&action=history you seem to know what you're doing on here so I was hoping you could help with this situation. The user is adding blatantly false information. it's something that is not present in the series and has never been referenced. the user seems to be basing his addition on something he has misheard from watching the anime series. the article isn't even about the anime series. I would appreciate your assistance in this, doing things the proper wikipedia way. I can only think of restoring the article to a state that doesn't contain false information. I've asked him to stop, I don't know what else to do. I don't want to end up in an edit war with somebody like this that seems to be just trolling. thanks! Drag-5 (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Which user are you referring to? Are they registered, or anonymous IP addresses? I can't really tell from the article history who the problem editor is. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Help

Hey, can you help me with something? I uploaded this image to Misplaced Pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Stikky_cemetary_San_Jose_1987.jpg I contacted the photographer and he gave me permission to use it on Misplaced Pages, so I was wondering what the proper licensing would be. I tried to find the proper license tag, but Misplaced Pages just put it on speedy deletion. Thanks in advance. BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Nevermind, I got it. BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Because you deserve it ;) Redalert2fan (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --IllaZilla (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey

I got your message but you cant threaten to report me because i made the page for supervideos so it was fair to add. And by the way you cant just blank a complete page without discussion this can lead to being blocked if you want to make a redirect please use the talk page. The superhits page is basically a double page for both so i see no reason that there cant be two pages they are different releases and deserve a seperate page. They both have a tracklist, definition, members and a infobox and a cover. This was the requirement that everyone said was needed to make both Dos and Tre into pages and that is what we did. So since this has all of the requirements it can be its own page. And again like i said if you are going to Delete a page you must request a delete and use the talk page or risk being banned BlackDragon 02:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Superhits article was redirected over a year ago because it is not notable in and of itself outside the context of Superhits. The two were released at the same time, as part of the same marketing move, and are best discussed together. Supervideos does not have enough secondary source coverage to be independently notable. An item does not "get" its own page simply because you can make a tracklist and infobox. See WP:NALBUMS and WP:N for notability requirements. Supervideos was merged into Superhits for good reason, and you should not split it again just because you think it "gets its own article". If you think it's notable enough to stand alone, you need to prove it by demonstrating significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The only reason you want it to be separate is so you can link it in the navbox. It is best covered with Superhits, just like Blink-182's CD and DVD releases of the same nature. I did not delete the page, it was redirected, and that does not require a deletion discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No i dont just want to add it to the stupid Navigation box i think it should be added anyways since it redirects to its own section on the page but that was the requirement to make the other pages so it should be enough to make this its own page and again blanking a page without discussion can result in a ban. Even if you think you are right you should war and can get be banned from editing by doing so this is you final warning BlackDragon 03:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the expression "the pot calling the kettle black"? I advise you not to make threats when your own behavior is equally egregious, if not moreso. Again, the DVD does not "get its own page" simply because you think it should. We have general notability criteria and specific criteria for albums. The most important of both being the requirement of significant secondary source coverage. Supervideos and Superhits are companion releases and should be discussed together, in the same article. You have provided no argument to the contrary other than "it has a tracklisting, infobox, and credits", which is unconvincing. If you think it merits a stand-alone article, you need to discuss it on a relevant talk page and provide sources to back up your assertion. Until then the article will remain redirected as it has been for over a year. Consider this your final warning: Any more edit-warring on your part and I will report you straight away. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

K you know what I dont care about its own article I just thought it could so I made it. its fine having it on the same page it doesnt bother me.

But what did was it seems like you stalk my edits and revert everything I do. Such As

1. you deleting the page right when I made it even though its sourced over other non sourced articles that I had nothing to do with
2. you commented on the admins page right after I did
3. you reverted some edits right after I made them such as
4. when I thought i was adding categories to the Tokyo... talk page i removed the rating part since it didnt have one yet and was accidently on BBBPP and hit save instead of preview and i saw that it was the wrong page and was in the middle of changing it back when you reverted it immediately before I could fix it
5. Right after I added the stuff back to the template you removed it

So you might not but it really seems like it and thats what made me mad. so you can kinda see why I was but Its fine about having them together but The Tokyo page really should be left since it has at least 3 very reliable sources and if the others arent thats fine but like I said the other 3 have none and have been left untouched for 7 or 8 years since they were made in 2004 and 2005 so thats why it should stay. BlackDragon 20:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not "stalk your edits and revert everything you do". That's a gross exaggeration: You have edited 245 different pages, I have reverted you on 3. To my knowledge we have not interacted or crossed edits on any other articles. Many of the Green Day-related pages are on my watchlist, including a number of redirects. So when you edited them, it showed up on my watchlist. I then edited as I felt appropriate. If it seems I'm reverting or editing after you rather swiftly, it's probably because I check my watchlist often. When I notice mistakes, like you accidentally removing the assessment ratings from Wikiproject banners and improperly linking a template, I fix them. If you perceive this as a slight simply because I fixed it swiftly, I can only say that you are mistaken.

When you started threatening me with a ban (which is laughable) I took the liberty of checking your contributions and saw that you had run off to JamesBWatson in an (equally laughable) attempt to have me blocked. I have the right to respond to such accusations, and did so. I note JamesBWatson's response says, in part: "IllaZilla has given cogent reasons, based on Misplaced Pages's guidelines and expressed courteously, to justify his edits. Meanwhile, Black60dragon's reasons amount to little more than 'I think it should be this way', and sometimes his/her messages have been somewhat aggressive in tone."

I have addressed the problems with the Tune In, Tokyo... article and its sources at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tune In, Tokyo... and am not going to rehash them here. You keep bringing up other deficient articles, but that does nothing to address the irreparable problem that this topic (Tune In, Tokyo...) has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I once again remind you that the mere existence of other, similar articles is not a valid argument and that inclusion is not an indicator of notability. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Like I said it just really looks like that and I was talking about when I do stuff to green day related things. It just seems that way I never said you did. And i reported you and added the warnings because you blanked the page after I warned you not to. And the other thing was it seems that you just requested the page I made for deletion because I made it. The others I had nothing to do with were fine though. And you couldnt of had this name in your watch list because the page was previously called Tune In Tokyo when i made Tune In, Tokyo... it had never been created before.

It may not be valid at the deletion page but im bringing it up here. To you are they any better than the one I made which at least has a sourced Track, Label, Release and Members and the others have to none. Dont say its unrelated because its not but to you how are these more reliable than my page I made BlackDragon 00:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please dont edit my page If you wanted them removed you should of told me on my talk page your edit has been reverted. And I will replace them later BlackDragon 23:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:NFCC is policy. I do not require nor desire your permission to enforce it. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. If I had not removed the images, a bot would eventually have done it automatically, without asking permission. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

So you dont want my permission. It may be, but I just copied the pages without remember the pictures. And I would have let the bot, my problem is that you seem to check every page I contribute to and change it back. If it was anyone but You it would be fine. Next time let the bot do it and dont edit my page. BlackDragon 03:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Still don't care. Pages in your userspace are not yours per se; they are part of Misplaced Pages, and belong to the wider community. Other users are explicitly allowed to edit your userspace to enforce policy, and I will not refrain from doing so just because you don't like me. Again you're greatly exaggerating about me reverting all of your edits: I have only reverted you on 3 articles, out of the hundreds you've edited and the thousands I have. Reality check, please. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"And you couldnt of had this name in your watch list because the page was previously called Tune In Tokyo when i made Tune In, Tokyo... it had never been created before." Not true. Tune In, Tokyo... was created by Ericfernando rock (talk · contribs) in October 2009. It was immediately put up for speedy deletion by Merlion444 (talk · contribs) and then redirected by Bearcat (talk · contribs). The title has existed as a redirect for 3 years. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

FAC comment

Hi. Would you like to comment at the FAC page for The Way I See It (album)? Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Big Black links

Hello,

Regarding the external links for Big Black, I can understand the removal of the "official page" link, given that it's still their record label and the only "official" source for Big Black. You are right in that the live guide was made by me. I did think about the coi but for exemple the Nirvana page has a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/Nirvana_%28band%29#External_links) for a live guide structured the same way as mine and I assumed the information was valid enough to outweigh the coi. It's been researched and compiled with help from people close to the band etc... so it's a serious project. I would like to hear your input on the validity of the guide as it's not something that can easily be incorporated into the wiki page for the band.

Thank you for your time, Tokvev (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

A troll?

B767-500, he seems like one. Have you dealt with vandalism before? I could use some example here.

Anyway, this part: "The Prometheus lands near a series of large artificial structures, the first of which the team explores" is not B767-500's contribution. It's JohnSawyer's, I've convinced him and reverted or reword most of his edits, but I kept that part there because it's not entirely useless. We could use some mention that there's more than one structure to imply that there's more than one spacecraft. Otherwise, the second craft might appear a Deus Ex Machina. Anthonydraco (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment.

I'd appreciate some feedback on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/TheMetallican, if that's alright. Looks like the guy has made a few more accounts. Friginator (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Again? Yeesh, that guy doesn't get the hint, does he? --IllaZilla (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Get a Life

C,mon man the page was already being discussed at the talk and it wasnt considered a delete either so its fine to keep. Can you not sleep at night unless this page is gone??? seriously its annoying. I try to make this place better and you keep trying to get it removed. Get over it it wasnt deleted so move on man. BlackDragon 03:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The article was previously deleted in 2009. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tune in, Tokyo... Because of the difference in capitalization of "In" in the titles, the old AfD did not come up when I nominated Tune In, Tokyo... for deletion. Had it come up, the new article could have been deleted under WP:GCSD no. 4 since the new version is substantially identical to the old and does not address the reasons it was deleted. The more recent AfD closed as no consensus, which does not override a previous consensus to delete. You are not "making this place better" by creating articles on non-notable topics that have not received significant secondary source coverage, particularly ones that have previously been deleted for precisely that reason. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thats was an entirely different page, it didnt contain the same info this one does, so its irrelevant. Why do you want this deleted so bad. its not like there arent other worse sourced album pages by punk rock artist or even in general. You just seem to really hate the Tune In page so much. Does it bring up bad memories. Because after it closed you reopened another one twice and then complained on everyones page that closed it and had another discussion elsewhere even though there was already a discussion on the page. So whats your problem with this page, Why do you hate this one article so much because like I said they are plenty of stub and non sourced album pages by plenty of different major bands, but you chose this one to get rid of and then tried to get the ones that I used as examples deleted. BlackDragon 01:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you know what it was like? It was substantially the same as the current version: little more than an infobox and tracklist. There was no evidence whatsoever of significant secondary source coverage then, and there isn't now. Significant coverage has not magically appeared from the ether in the last 3 years. As for the rest, yet again I refer you to WP:OTHERCRAP. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

themetallican

Its me I want to discuss my problem with how I am sockin and stuff and what caused it. But I couldn't get your attention to discuss it on my talk page so I used this. You can delete this message. But I want to talk about it. --2600:1003:B024:1D00:6454:55BC:92D6:B6E (talk) (User:TheMetallican) 16:46, 22, October 2012 (UTC)

It is very simple: don't create sockpuppets. When you are blocked, it means you are not allowed to edit. Creating new accounts to bypass a block is a direct violation of policy. You have already been instructions at User talk:TheMetallican#Blocked as to how to appeal your block. That is your only avenue through which to discuss having your editing privileges restored. Though with the amount of sockpuppetry you've done over the last few months, I wouldn't hold your breath. You'll have to demonstrate an understanding of why you were blocked and make it clear that you won't repeat the same behavior in the future. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Another obvious sock . It's pretty easy to find him as the same 30 articles suddenly pop up in my watchlist. His edits last all of about 30 seconds so I'm not sure why this game continues. Ridernyc (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Halestorm page

Disregard this message. I misread the page history. Sorry for wasting your time. Have a nice day! NECRAT 03:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

punk rock started in the 60's

Dear Illa Zilla,

You have to forgive me for being new at this. I am brand new to the task of editing on Misplaced Pages (you can tell). I made several edits, that you recinded. I think that we went back and forth a few times. No hard feelings. Like you, I am a big fan of punk rock. For instance, I love classic punk bands, such as The Clash, from the mid to late 70's.

So understandably, I have always been interested in how punk evolved and its earliest roots. Like you, I have spent most of my life with the persective that punk started in the mid-to-late 70's, and that previous influences were mainly prototypical, although I have to admit that I have always found certain songs by Iggy & the Stooges to be very punk way before thier time. I also had heard about how garage rock from the 60's had infuenced punk, but I tended to regard it as proto-punk, not actual punk.

But, a few things have changed my mind on this. The first thing was when I bought the Nuggets compilation. I was surprised to read the liner notes written by Lenny Kaye (later with the Patti Smith Group) referring to what we now call garage rock of the mid 60's as "punk rock"--this was back in 1972. And he seems to use the term as if it is common knowledge amongst hip people. Then, I later found out that Dave Marsh had referred to Question Mark and the Mysterions as "punk rock," a whole year before that in Creem Magazine (May 1971). And, I have also read that Lester Bangs wrote about it in Creem during this time, identfying punk as a mid-60's phenomenon (obviously seeing it from an early 70's perspective).

Needless to say, I really enjoyed the Nuggets collection, so I began trying to find other more obsure collections (Pebbles, Back From the Grave, Teenage Shutdown, etc.) and I can now say that I am positively in love with this music!! It does not necessarily always sound like what we now think punk should, but it doesn't necessarily need to (because Dave Marsh, Lester, Bangs, and Lenny Kaye were talking about the whole garage "punk" music in all of its stylistic dimensions, not just thrashy sounding songs). You hear a lot of blues, R&B, surf, rockabily,British invasion, and psychedlic inluences mixed in with the rougher harder diamond edges. It is 60's music, after all. But, in various degrees, there is a certain kind of punk swagger runs through it all, which gives it an edgier feel than the better known music of the time.

But, what is really surprising is that there are a bunch of crazy songs that sound punk as hell!!! Check out "1523 Blair," by The Outcasts (released Jan. 1967, recorded 1966), "I'm Movin' On" and "From a Curbstone" by Evil (1966), "We're Pretty Quick," by the Chob (1967), "Voices Green and Purple," by the Bees 91966)(check out the artwork on the record cover!!!). And there are many, many other songs in this vein.

Now,let me say this with several caviots: If I had not known that the garage era music of the mid 60's had been referred to as "punk," in the early 70's, I would have regarded it a precurser to actual punk, with perhaps certain songs that might register as punk (or at least almost). And, I also acknowledge that the 60's garoge rockers had not claimed the word "punk" for themselves. If the word punk had been used in the 60's, it would most likely have been used in a disparraging way by an older person. And, I also acknowlege that it wasn't until the mid to late 70's that bands started calling temselves "punk," and adopting a look, philosophy, and ideology that was completely seperate from other forms of rock.

In the 60's it wasn't really necessary to do that, because the youth had their collective back up against the wall and had to stand united against the older establishment; any divisions in the ranks would have weakend their efforts rather than strengthened them. There would have no use in creating a distinction between "punk" and "hippie" at that time. All of the rock of that era, whether you call it "mod," "British invasion," "punk," "garage," "psycedelic," "acid," "hippe" whatever was tied up in a nexus. To appreciate just how true this is, watch the Standells performing in a club during the opening credit sequence of the movie, "Riot on Sunset Strip" to understand what I am talking about. They are punky as hell!!! ...and yet somehow there is the hippy thing at the same time. But, the more you excavate through the 60's, the more you find punk. The term was not self-referentially used at that time, but the reality of its exixtence was already very much there. And all it needed do would be to find people to point it out and codify it (Marsh, Bangs, Kaye, et. al. in 1971-1972). By the way check out the Sylvania TV ad from 1966 on Youtube (with that wild rock & roller). What do you find?

So let's talk about "punk" as it relates to the 60's: Is it necessary for musicians and people in a certain cultural milieu to have to self-define thier own genre or label and create a whole seperate look and philosophy to be considered a part of that label or deignation? I say not. Did the first heavy metal performers (such as Blue Cheer, early Led Zeppelin) call themselves "heavy metal?" No. In fact many of them denied the label after it later became fashionably applied to them. Their look and aesthetic style was not much differnt from other bands of the late 60's (check out Robert Plant's or Ian Gillin's tie-dye shirts in '69--same thing that Crosby, Stills, and Nash would have been wearing). They were just singing to their generation. Does that mean that they weren't "heavy metal?" Of course not. The term was coined to apply to them. Of course, later on, heavy metal would evolve into having a whole seperate look and identity from other forms of rock, but that was a few years away. By the way, didn't the Ramones deny the label punk for a while circa '78? Does that make them not punk?

Did the mid 60's garage rockers have to call themselves "punk" and look completely different form everyone else at that time to be punk? I say no. Because, the term "punk rock" as it was first used applied to them. Did The Creation ever have the slightest clue in 1966 that people would one day be refering to them as "freakbeat?" Certainly not. Does that mean that they weren't freakbeat? Of course not.

I'll be the first person to agree with you that when the term "punk rock" was first used to describe the garage rockers of the 1960's, it was used to designate a sub-genre within a larger genre (much as was the case with "freakbeat"). It did not necessarily denote a whole seperate movement. Does that make it not punk? No. There is no way of getting around it: the garage rock of the mid-60's was the original form of punk rock and was the first style to be designated as such within the rock critical community. That is not a matter of opinion, but fact (I posted the references to the articles on Wiki, but you removed them).

I am in no way disparaging the later more identifyable punk rock post-1975. It was my love of that music that brought me to want to discover where it came from. And, it is my love for great bands such as The Clash, who proudly proclamed themselves a "garage band" on thier first album (even though the bands of the sixties did not use that term), that led me to this. And I have heard Joe Strummer say in a documentary that he considered the garage bands of the 1960's to be the original punk. I wish that some of the other great 70's punk icons could have been as generous.

There can be no denying the genius of the bands of the 70's punk movement, particularly the British bands. They created a whole new look and philosophy to go with thier brilliantly updated punk sound at a time when rock really needed it badly. They truly shook the world. And, they took something that had started almost accidently years before and brought it out into the light of day for the whole world to see. The punk movement of the 70's should have been the ultimate vindication for the long neglected and forgotten 60's punk rock bands. But, instead the 60's groups have been relageted to proto-purgatory ever since. And, that is just not right.

DIY: The 60's punk bands didn't say much about it--they went out and did it--like no one ever before or since. They had the gumption to go out and form bands by the hundreds of thousands--playing live and recording (often on numerous independent labels--sounds familiar?). There is no way of counting, but I have read that in 1966 there could have been at least 300,000 garage bands active in the United States alone--a phenominon that touched practically every niegborhood in the country. There is nothing even comparible in any other rock era in terms of size or scope. The amount do-it-youself grassroots rock bands at the time was staggering. In terms of size, 1966 was the greatest explosion for punk rock ever(or any kind or rock--when people mention 1977 and 1992 as the years that punk broke, I laugh). If you don't believe me go look at the factory orders for Ludwig drums and Fender guitars and amps. The factories had to go through massive expansions and run quadruple 24-hour shifts night and day. Fender today is the largest guitar company in the world, but the factory they have now is a fraction of the size as the one they had to build then to keep up with the demand. But, the garage rock craze was a stealth revelution. Nobody know what to make of it at the time. No one knew what to call it. It is almost as if these bands did unconsciously what later gerations would have to do consciously. They are invisible forgotten punk revelutionairis (the real Genration X). Due to the overabundance of competion, there was just no way for most of these bands to ever hit it big individually speaking (the later punk bands got rich in comparison and stole all of ther credit). The guitar and drum manufacturers were the only ones who made much money out of the whole garage rock explosion.

All-Female Bands: If the guys in all of those bands' sense of feminist awareness wasn't as high as in the punk of more recent years (is it ever as high as it should be?), then here is the perfect antiodote: go to the Girl Garage Mayhem blog on Myspace and read the list of approximately 160 all-female groups operating at the time. This is ten years before The Runaways or The Slits. The Pleasure Seekers were really terrific.

So, isn't it time 60's punk got its due. Garagepunk66 (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

tl;dr -- As I said in my edit summary, you need to bring this up at Talk:Punk rock. Since problems have been identified with your edits, you need to build consensus for them. Also, we have an article for the '60s stuff: garage rock. I have read dozens of books about punk rock (it was the topic of my masters thesis) and the '60s garage stuff is, of course, widely considered a forerunner of '70s punk rock, and many of the original '70s punks cited '60s acts as their influences (mainly the New York punks, ie. the Ramones cited many '60s garage rock acts as inspirations, and the Nuggets compilation is mentioned by many in the NYC scene as influential). But "punk rock" as a term describing a musical style/scene did not enter the vernacular until the mid-'70s (a handful of obscure prior usages notwithstanding), and is is this music that innumerable sources are describing when they write about "punk rock". Numerous secondary sources describe and support this. That's why the punk rock article has a section for "Garage rock and mod" describing the influence of these precursor acts, and an "Etymology" section describing earlier uses of the term, including those you mention above. We go into more detail at the garage rock article, and we use summary style to provide a brief description within the punk rock article. But again, we really shouldn't be having this discussion here. It needs to be had at Talk:Punk rock so other editors will see it and become involved. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear IllaZilla,

I realize that there is a secion about Garage and Mod, but it is incomplete very awkwardly written and contains factual errors (or at least needs better clarification). For instance, when it says that mod was in decline in 1966, that is simply not true. The street-style motor scooter-riding "tickets" that had inhabited London a year or two earlier (immortalized by The Who in Quadrophenia) may have diminished, but mod as a broader fashion style in clothing and dress and hip culture was reaching at its pinnicle and was becomming a world phenominon in 1966. Check out Antonioni's famous film, Blow Up, to see the mod culture in full gear in swinging London (1966).

Mod was becomming the new fashion and style craze here in America in 1966. Check out the May 13 article in Life magazine that year. It features models on the front cover posing for a picture in Chicago, mimicking the pose and attire of an earlier picture taken of the garage (punk) band the Del Vetts. Did the article mention the Del Vetts? No. But aren't used to 60's punk bands being ignored? Still. mod was the rage.

No matter where you were in 1966, if you were in a rock band and wanted the "in" look, it was mod. The hip look in garage rock (as in all rock) was mod in 1966.

The section about Garage and Mod, says barely anything about garage rock in America. This is particlarly distressing in light of the fact that garage rock would have such a great influence on what we would later call punk. It deserves a better discussion in punk rock history than it usually recieves. That is why so many of the books that you have read barely even mention it. But, if you took the time to learn more about garage rock and listen to a lot of the bands, especially the lesser known, harder-core sounding ones, you might come to realize that garage rock does not get enough discussion in the history of punk. The role of garage rock in the history of is in need of re-evaluation.

So, when I edited the piece, I added a few things, and corrected some errors. I seperated the writing into several different paragrpahs, so that it would be easier for people to read. But, I kept the vast majority of what had been there before. I worked within a framework of respect for the ideas of former contributers, even it I thought the style could have been improved. If you compare my revisions to what was there before, you will notice a lot of improvements.

I wish that you would show me the same courtesy by modifying, editing, or improving my contributions rather than eliminating them. I think that just as my pieces improved on what there had been there before, you could help me by making mine better. By eliminating them altogether, things take a step back, rather than a step foward, and we end up with lower quality writing than what we deserve.

Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you that there are problems with the quality of the writing. Punk rock is a featured article, meaning it has been reviewed multiple times by highly-experienced members of the Misplaced Pages community and determined to meet the featured article criteria, including being comprehensive, well-researched, and well-written. Having done a great deal of reading and research-based writing on the topic myself, I agree that it meets these criteria. Again, I think much of what you are talking about is already covered in the "Garage rock and mod" and "Etymology" sections of the article and within the Garage rock article. Your statement that:

It deserves a better discussion in punk rock history than it usually recieves. That is why so many of the books that you have read barely even mention it. But, if you took the time to learn more about garage rock and listen to a lot of the bands, especially the lesser known, harder-core sounding ones, you might come to realize that garage rock does not get enough discussion in the history of punk. The role of garage rock in the history of is in need of re-evaluation.

...is an example of undue weight. If the vast majority of sources discussing punk rock treat the '60s garage rock acts as a precursor and do not give it much more prominence than that (which is the case, in my experience), then so should Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not the place to "re-evaluate the role of garage rock in the history of punk". We cover it as an aspect of punk rock, but in proportion to the prominence it is given in the majority of sources dedicated to the topic of punk rock. If your desire is to rewrite the early history of punk, that is a noble goal, but not one that should be carried out on Misplaced Pages. Again, you should take this up at Talk:Punk rock, not here. Since punk rock is a featured article, many editors keep it on their watchlist and will respond to topics brought up on the article's talk page. In having the discussion here, we are limiting it to just you and me. Establishing consensus for such a large change to a featured article requires the input of additional editors, and should take place on the article's talk page, not a user talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Predator

Thanks for the recent edit on Predator. I added in Latin America, someone else had added that explanation. However I think it is still inappropriate to call it Latin America. I left something on the talk page on the Predator (film) article and would appreciate if you could add in your thoughts there.--JTBX (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Predator

I explained the reason for the move in the edit summary, "This is a fictional alien species, not real aliens". You reverted it without even bothering to provide a reason why the older title was better. Since you did not address my rationale, nor did you provide a reason why the older title is better, I'm restoring the better title. If you object, maybe this time you can come up with a reason? Blind-reverting is bad form. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not "blind revert", I stated a reason in my edit summary: This is a high-traffic article that links to numerous other articles. The title was the result of past discussion and consensus, and a move should not be undertaken without discussion. If you unilaterally move it again, I will move it right back. Moving major articles without any discussion is bad form. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, your edit summary was "undiscussed move of major article. start a move request on talk page." Nowhere did you provide an actual reason why the old title was better. Your objection seems to over process, not substance. So, can you tell me why you prefer the old title? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not lying. I said it's a high-traffic article and you should have discussed a move first, which you didn't. Don't get me started on "process wonkery for the sake of process wonkery"...I'm currently forced to engage in exactly that type of lameness over on another page. The title Predator (alien) was the result of a move request which represents consensus, so a move to a different title requires a new consensus. I did not think the new title was an improvement, simply more lengthy. That said, this is a difficult article to name and there may be several possible titles that could be better. Naming Alien (creature in Alien franchise) was a hell of a thing. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Dude get over yourself. Grow Up its a freaking stamp. Does it ruin your day, Can you not sleep at night if its not there. Cmon your a freaking 32 year old man with no life, (that probably still lives with his mom), that worries about whether or not a time stamp is at the end of everyone of my signatures, its not that big of a deal if its not there dont make it one. Go grow up and edit someones else's crap instead of everything I write. Just get over it BlackDragon

DRV NAC

That was a good close you just reverted. If non-admins shouldn't close DRVs, then just as equally, non-admins shouldn't revert DRV closes. I think you should have left it alone, and raised a question at WT:DRV instead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to an admin making the same close, but closing DRVs is a task specifically entrusted to admins. I'm pretty sure anyone is allowed to revert an action they feel is "against the rules". --IllaZilla (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

AVA

I saw your recent change on the Angels & Airwaves article. I know there is no source about new song but it does exist. It was exclusive for the "gold members" fan. Like listed before you reverted it came in a USB format. It is likely this won't have a source. As it was a fan pack release. Just like how hidden tracks don't usually have sources. And just as you can expect it someone always puts it on YouTube, here. (It's all instrumental until about 5:30 in) — ıʇɐʞǝɐdʌɐиƭɐqǝoɟʎouɹqoɐʇ 22:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)