Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:12, 23 November 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.

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)

Thanks for helpping me learnthe ways of Wiki

Dear IllaZilla, I appreciate you helping me learn the protcals of editing on Wiki. I am glad that you did not take any offense to some of my earlier revisions/reversions. I will try to create consensus on the talk pages, but I know, even there I will drive a lot of people nuts. So, I'm going to do better with that, too. I have an idea that you might find interesting:

Perhaps you could work on an advanced study project, alone , or with others, either with some of the other seasoned editors, or in outside academia, focusing on the early history (or what most will consider the prehistory) of punk rock, specifically the garage rock period (1963-1967). It is the period that that has recieved the least attention of practically all rock genres, yet is the one with perhps the most amount of recorded music. I consider this period to be the Rosetta Stone of rock--a national treasure--a huge, vast ocean waiting to be fully dicovered and properly appreciated. There is so much here to enquire about: so much great music, so many oral histories of former band members, etc., but many of these people are now dying off, and there is an urgency to learn as much as we can about this subject.

When I look at the history of punk rock, I see a continuum: 1) First pre-history of punk: the prehistory of rock & roll (pre 1955: certain delta blues: i.e. faster songs by Robert Johnson, Chicago blues, jump blues, early R&B, etc.). 2) Second pre-history of punk: early rock & roll (1955-1957: Chuck Berry, Bo Diddly, Jerry Lee Lewis, Buddy Holly, rockabilly, particularly the harder rumbling school. 3) Third pre-history of punk(1958-1962: Link Wray, regional rock & roll). 4) First punk era (1963-1967, or perhaps into 1968). This era can be divided into two halves: a) pre-British invsion (1963-first half of 1964: Northwest hard r&b driven rock, frat rock, surf, particularly hard instrumental school, i.e. Dick Dale, etc.) and post (later half of 1964-1967: mod garage bands, starting with The Barbarians, the Rockin' Ramrods,Los Saicos from Peru, and all of ther rest). Some "garage is punk" advocates consider the pre-British ivasion period to be protopunk and the mod period to be actual punk. However, from, what I've read about him, I believe that in his writings for Creem in the early 70's, Lester Bangs, considered punk to start with the Kingmen "Louie, Louie." Supposedly it was Lester Bangs who came up with the most elaborate original definitions of the punk timeline. I would tend to favor whatever position he took, because it was he who originally defined the whole period, but I have not had access to his writings on the topic. I would like to read them. Perhaps you would know how to acess them (I would love to know). Then all of the later periods.

One point that all "garage is punk" advocates agree on is that the post-British Invasion garage rock is true punk, I am not alone in this. I can assure you that practially every serious fan and collecor of garage rock considers (at least 1965-1967) to be pure punk rock, and that is the assumption of practiclly every CD and LP compilation. It is taken as an article of faith--as a gospel truth in these circles, that garage rock is the origianl form of punk rock. The particularly resplendent year we covet is 1966 (in terms of size, scope, and musical innovation: one of the watershed years of punk--the summit of the first and golden age of punk).

Great collections Nuggets Box Set, Pebbles series, Back From the Grave series, Teenage shudown series, Garagebeat '66 series. Here is a short list of songs to consider (check out Youtube):

1) "It's a Cryin Shame," The Gentlemen (Vanden, 1966); also: rehearsl verison (1966) 2) "Destination Lonely," the Huns (1966) 3) "We're Pretty Quick," The Chob (1967) 4) "1523 Blair," The Outcasts (rec. 1966, re. 1967) 5) "Project Blue," The Banshees (Dunwich, 1966) 6) "I'm Movin' On," Evil (1966) 7) "From a Curbstone," Evil (1966) 8) "She's Been Travelin' Round the World," The Seeds of Time (1966) 9) "And She Said Yes," The Painted Ship (1966) 10)"The World Ain't Round, It's Square," The Savages (1966) 11) "Look in Your Mirror," The Merlynn Tree (1966) 12)"The Courtship of Rapunzel," The Bruthers (1966) 13) "Circuit Breaker," the Pastels (1965) 14)"Voices Green and Purple," the Bees (1966) 15)"I'm a Nothing," by The Magic Plants (1966) 16)"On Tour," by The Chancellors (1966) 17)"It's Gonna Take Awile," The Morticans 18)The Merlynn tree: "Look in Your Mirror" (1966) 19) "I Don't Want to Try it Again" and I'm Gone Slide," by the Dagenites (1965) 20) "Saturday's Son," by The Sons of Adam. 21) "Never thought You'd Leave Me" and Waht a Way to Die," by the Pleasure Seekers (1966) 21) "Cry a Little Longer, by The Grodes (1966) 22) "Voices Green and Purple, by the Bees (1966) 23) "She Lied" by The Rockin Ramrods 91964) 24)"Watch: Sylvania TV Commercial Rock 1966 ...(and many, many more)

Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Etymology" (in Wiki "Punk Rock" article)

The "Etymology" section of the Wiki "Punk Rock" article is vague, omits key information, and does not make it clear enough that garage rock (1963-1967) was the first genre of music to be spoken of as "punk rock." It also omits the fact that Lenny Kaye (future member of Patti Smith Group) referred to it, as a whole genre, as "punk rock" in his original liner notes to the Nuggets compilation LP (Electra, 1972) (L. Kaye, "Headed, Decked, and Stroked..." original liner notes for Nuggets. (Electra, 1972)) The Wiki "Etymology" section speaks as if the word "punk rock," was used arbitrarily by critics in the early 70's. This is false and innacurate. The critics knew exactly what they were referring to: garage rock of the mid-60's.

In the early 70's certain inluential rock critics retroactively used the term "punk rock" to describe the mid-60's garage bands as a sub-genre, whether individually or collecively, making it the first time the word was used as such to refer to a style of rock.)D. Marsh, Review for Question Mark & the Mysterions. Creem Magazine. May, 1971) ([L. Kaye, liner notes to Nuggets LP compilation. Electra Records. 1972)

To quote Lenny Kaye's liner notes to the original 1972 "Nuggets" LP compitaion:

"...In addition, most of these groups (and by and large, this was an era dominated by groups) were young, decidedly unprofessional, seemingly more at home practicing for a teen dance than going out on a national tour. The name that has been unofficially coined for them--"punk rock"--seems particularly fitting in this case." (L. Kaye, "Headed, Decked, and Stroked..." original liner notes for Nuggets. (Electra, 1972)) Lenny Kaye took the colloquial, unofficial term that was floating around and, in the act of writing about it, officially codified it in the larger public mind in his notes on a major record relase by a major record label with widespread distribution (Electra).

No doubt the previous Wiki editors have read the website, "Etymology of Punk (and the Developent of How the Term Came to be Used in Rock) (www.johnsavage.com/punk-etymology). But they have made a bad misreading of its contents. It quotes and cites numerous articles from 1969-the late 70's. From 1971-1975, "Punk Rock," is used time and time again to refer to the garage rock of the mid-60's. The word "garage band," is also used, but not nearly as often as "punk." The critics do allow the extension of the term "punk rock" to apply to contemporary artists of that era (1971-1975), as well. You will see references to various contemporry artists of the time that the critics percived as "punk rock" at the time. Some references may surprise you (Bob Seger, Grand Funk Railroad, Springsteen, etc.). Some may not (Iggy and the Stooges, early Alice Kooper). But, one thing is certain: the barometer for whether or not they considered a contemporary group artist "punk" was the degree to which that group or artist was percieved to embody the spirit of the mid-60's garage bands.

The current "Etymology" secion of the "Punk Rock article in Wiki, badly misreads the intent of rock critics of the early to mid 70's and makes it seem as if the term "punk rock" was used arbitrarily by these critics, but it was not. There may have some been confusion about what constituted "punk" in terms of contemporary artists of the time, but here is absolutely no confusion about how it realted to the garage rock bands of the mid-60's, which were considered the foundation of the definition.

In the article, "The Shakin' Street Punk Survey," by Metal Mike Saunders (that appeared in the "Shakin Street Gazette" Nov.7, 1974) Sauners speaks of the mid-70's punk movement in New York as a punk "revival" (not as a new thing called punk): "...the punk music revival is now in full swing.". (M. Saunders, "Shakin' Street Punk Survey," Shakin Steet Gazette. November, 1974) He also talks about the influence of the Nuggets compilation LP on their New York contemporaries." (M. Saunders, "Shakin' Street Punk Survey," Shakin Steet Gazette. November, 1974)

Over a year and a half earlier, Greg Shaw, in his Rolling Stone review of Nuggets had said:

"Punk Rock at its best is the closest we came in the 60's to the original rockabilly spirit of Rock 'n Roll, ie Punk Rock The Arrogant Underbelly of Sixties Pop..." (Rolling Stone, Jan. 4, 1973) (G. Shaw. Rolling Stone, Jan. 4, 1973)

A few years later, Shaw in review for a live show by the Sex Pistols at the 100 club (Record, June 1976), describes them as "punk rock," but in the context of how they fit into his previous definition of the term, not as a new definition (keep in mind that, at that time, they often did covers of old mid-60's songs, such as "Stepping Stone," by Paul Revere and the Raiders and "Substitute," by The Who). It is not until the Sex Pistols got really big and become a cause celebre all over England (post-Grundy show appearance) that the term "punk" shifted away from its previous definition to designating a new phenominon.

But, the article that goes into the most detail about the early definition for mid 60's garage as "punk," is "White Punks on Coke," by Mick Houghton (Let it Rock, Dec. 1975) He talks extensively about the "resurrection," of punk currently going on (i.e. what we would assume to be the New York Scene--CBGB's, etc.). At great length, he litanizes the various "punk" bands of the 60's: ? & The Mysterions, The Castaways, The Count Five, The Shadows of The Knight, The Barbarians, The Seeds, The Blues magoos, etc. Read it. To Houghton:

"But that challenge was taken up by a plethora of amorphous garage bands which sprang up in the suburbs of American cities. It is among these groups that punk rock began. (Let It Rock, Dec. 1975)(M. Houghton. Let It Rock. Dec. 1975)

Over and over, the rock critics are absolutely clear that they consider the garage rock to be the original (and touchstone) form of punk rock. However, the Wiki "Etymology" section of the "Punk Rock" article does not sufficiently reflect this. It only makes occasional references to these critics and makes their statements appear to be equivical. It does mention that Ed Sanders used the term, "punk rock," to describe the Fugs (in a 1970 article). But, Sanders remarks does not attempt to define a whole genre of music. It is likely that he is using the term "punk rock" in context of how it was probably being used colloquially at the time: to describe garage bands of the mid-60's and how the term could also be used to denote contemporaries who considered themselves to be following in the eccentric spirit of the garage bands. In all likleyhood, Sanders is using the term in exactly the same context as critics, such as Dave Marsh, Lenny Kaye, Greg Shaw, Mike Saunders, and Mick Houghton.

After careful reading of what was said, time and time again, by influential rock critics 1971-1975, there can be absolutely no doubt that garage rock is the first genre of music to be referred to as "punk rock." The "Etymolgy" section of the Wiki "Punk Rock" article must be ammended to reflect this reality. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. You have already made your points at Talk:Punk rock, multiple times, and at great length. I am not interested in pursuing this on my user talk page. The place to discuss this, and to build consensus, is at the article talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 12:17, 18 November 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 move

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)

• Your edit summary was "undiscussed move of major article. start a move request on talk page." Instead of blind reverting, you should have provided a reason why the older title was better. Knee-jerk revisions without explanations is rude, IMHO. If I take the time to improve an article, and you disagree, you should at least show some common courtesy and explain why you prefer the older title.
• Apparently, you're unfamiliar with, or you've forgotten about WP:BOLD. Not every change needs to go through lengthy discussions.
• Thank you for finally providing a reason, although "more lengthy" isn't too compelling. The current title is inaccurate. Predator isn't a real alien species. It's a fictional alien species. I'm just trying to clarify that, that's all. It's a rather small change.
• I took a look at that discussion. That was 4 years ago, only a handful of editors participated. Also, my change is consistent with that discussion in that it's just a minor tweak to clarify that this is a fictional alien, not a real one.
• But since you insist on process wonkering for the sake of process wonkery, I started a discussion on the article talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

blink-182 EP

Sorry I thought the itunes EP and the new EP were different things, I see you combined the edits, but still sceptical that they're separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.235.102 (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. No way to know, really, whether the two EPs are the same thing until they actually materialize. I just prefer to work new information into the existing text so that things flow, rather than allowing a bunch of news bytes to start lining up at the bottom of the band history. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did you rv the name inclusion man? Look on their website they just opened the pre-orders for it and released the release date ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.235.102 (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It was improperly formatted, man, and we do not cite social networking sites. If a third-party source reports on it, which they surely will, then we can report on it. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It was from the official site. There are three packages: Santa's Lap, Nice, and Naughty. The site is temporarily down right now I think. I just freaking bought the pre order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.235.102 (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That's nice. This is an encyclopedia, not Blink182news.com. We're not here to report everything the band posts to their social networks, we're here to cover the history of the band as reflected in reliable secondary sources.--IllaZilla (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok I apologize for the incivility man, I know you are just trying to make everything absolute and not be frivolous with citations, but just to be clear modlife.com is not a social networking site, it is the official site for many bands. I really don't know why it is not working at this moment but my best guess is Tom DeLonge put it up too early without the word from the other band members, or some other legal reason. When the pre-orders for the new EP first came up, blink182.com redirected to modlife.com/blink182, which is Tom's site that lets fan connect directly to different bands (he also uses it for Angels and Airwaves). Anyway, I'd like to put this monkey business behind you and I, not trying to make a vendetta. 76.169.235.102 (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. I think we both went overboard reverting each other so many times. My concern was not having a working source. If the band has announced the release details for the EP (title, release date, tracklist) them I'm sure some reliable secondary sources will report on it. We can cite those sources when this happens. Since Misplaced Pages isn't the news and has no deadline, we can afford to wait for the secondary source coverage. There's no need for Misplaced Pages to be "first on the scene" with this type of stuff. Anyway, yes I agree let's put it behind us and bury the hatchet. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

And this is why verifiability is important. Because after all that, the EP's title is not what you kept insisting it was. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I realize that now, I again apologize, learned from the mistake 76.169.235.102 (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Blink-182 years

Hi, so why are the years next to the members in small font again? I remember that you were making them into standard font everytime someone made them small... — ıʇɐʞǝɐdʌɐиƭɐqǝoɟʎouɹqoɐʇ ✯talk✯ 01:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was User:TheSickBehemoth who put in the small font. See his edit. I just swapped out the html code for the {{small}} template. I don't recall "making them into standard font everytime someone made them small", though it's possible I just don't remember doing so. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

My bad. And well, I didn't literately mean every single time, but yes I see you do edit / protect (keep away vandalism) the Blink-182 article regularly. But should the fonts stay in small or standard? Does Wiki policy / standards specify this is any way? — ıʇɐʞǝɐdʌɐиƭɐqǝoɟʎouɹqoɐʇ ✯talk✯ 12:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no standard or MoS guideline I know of that says anything about the small fonts one way or the other. I've looked at a bunch of articles in Category:FA-Class biography (musicians) articles and some use small font, others don't. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BADCHARTS

Please do not add the United World chart (as you did here) or any other chart listed at WP:BADCHARTS to any Misplaced Pages articles.—Kww(talk) 04:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken: I did not add that chart. I merely reverted a new user, User:TaketheCrownorBreaktheSpell, who removed content from the article without explanation. I suggest you check the history to see who originally added it and issue this notice to them. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have warned that user (fairly sternly, because he has been warned before). You are also responsible for material that you add by reverting other users, so you got a polite request to not do that again.—Kww(talk) 15:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

prometheus and dodgy science

I have recouched the questions( which I previously posted without giving a long rationale) concerning criticism of the dodgy science in Prometheus. Per the WP policy section you referenced when removing the first entry "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles" Please inform me if you are unhappy or unclear with this policy and are considering removing the section again.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 21:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The original post was simply a complaint about the film's plot and as such was inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. The revised discussion is germane to Misplaced Pages's treatment of the topic and is thus acceptable. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

post rebuttal editing by you of your contributions in a debate

It is an odd thing to edit posts of yours after others have replied to them as you have done on the talk page of the movie Prometheus -it interferes with the flow of the debate, attempts to undermine replies, and has the appearance of your not having confidence in what you originally said. Calling another editor a liar is not civil and against policy. Please refrain from such acts in future. Rearranging the edits and editing the entries of others is not really on either.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 19:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Excue me? Please cite, specifically, where I have called anyone a liar, "undermined replies", etc. All I did was reformat the replies the way bulleted, !vote-style discussions are supposed to be formatted. You don't seem to know how to properly reply in these types of discussions. It follows the same format as an Afd: The bulleted comments are people's !votes, and if you wish to reply to that !vote you do so by indenting immediately below it, not by creating new bulleted !votes at the bottom of the thread. I will continue to fix the format unless you learn to do it properly yourself. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Re "Calling another editor a liar": That wasn't me, it was Darkwarriorblake. Please check your facts before you go around accusing people of improper behavior. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, nowhere have I edited my own comments post-rebuttal. Please show, using diffs, where you think I've done so. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The Fifth Element

The poster issue has evolved into a vote at Talk:The Fifth Element, if you'd care to weigh in. أنا أحبك (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

New Regime, Los Cycos

l actually page linked the wrong band it's New Regime (band) for the punk group and yes a New Regime new wave band did come after but that's obviously not the band I was referencing here. As far as Los Cycos, there is clearly a reference to the book written by Deena Weinstien in 2000 that clearly mentions Los Cycos as well. They were on a complete crossover album and very popular back in the day as well as an influence to many. I'll undue your reverse and site the proper page link. I think it best to not just assume something is not properly referenced as you did initially claiming that you doubt that either was included in the reference. Why dont you actually read! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkinfo (talk • contribs) 19:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't take that tone. The article on Los Cycos indicates that they were a side project lasting less than a year and that they only ever recorded 1 song. Thus they don't appear to be worth mentioning as one of the major bands of the movement. The claim that they "were very popular back in the day as well as an influence to many" is pure opinion not backed up by any reliable sources. As for New Regime, the link you added at the time went to an article about a Canadian new wave band, not a southern California hardcore band, which is why I reverted. I doubt that a mention in the pages of a punk fanzine counts as establishing significant notability to warrant a mention in an article about the overall history of punk rock. A mention in an article specifically about southern California hardcore, sure, but not in an article about punk rock in general. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well actually that particular paragraph is dealing with Southern California punk and New regime is obviously is a notable act or they wouldn't have a Wiki page. As far as Los Cycos is concerned I guess they were worth mentioning in the book so why not in this article? Punkinfo (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the punk rock article is about the genre of punk rock as a whole. It is meant to give an overview of the entire genre of punk rock and its history, not to name-drop every minor band and side project from every local scene. The section on hardcore is a summary style section, providing an overview of the most significant artists and aspects of that subgenre but, again, not name-dropping or delving into every minor act. The main article for hardcore is hardcore punk, which contains subsections on specific regional scenes. That is the place to delve into more detail, including smaller acts that are less relevant to the overall history of the entire genre of punk rock. However, if all there is to mention is that the act existed, as opposed to what they did and why they were significant to the movement, then the more appropriate place to mention them may be at List of hardcore punk bands. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

you're right and I apologize if I sounded a bit cross, I was a little frustrated and hate not being right! Lol thank you! Punkinfo (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Happy editing! It looks like you're working on some good stuff there in your userspace (Sin 34, Tiny Bubz, etc.) --IllaZilla (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Because there wasn't a "constantly repairing formatting" barnstar Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)