User talk:Sugar Bear/Archive09

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sugar Bear. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

WP:FILMS October Newsletter

The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS' Tag & Assess Drive and Roll Call

Nudge, poke.

And I'm reminding you that you have not satisfactorily dealt with the comments of Steve and Fifelfoo. If you like, I can make that observation on the FAC page and reiterate my opposition. I'd be happy to do that, if all you care about is hearing from me again. Or you can spend the time and effort to really deal with their comments and I'll have something more supportive to say. It's really entirely up to you. DocKino (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

GAR notification

Letting you know I've opened a good article reassessment for an article you are the most significant contributor to, Cool World. The article is currently on hold for a week pending improvements; see the GAR page at Talk:Cool World/GA1. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Bakshi

Hi Ibaranoff24. I have archived the FAC nomination of Ralph Bakshi. While I understand that you do not necessarily feel that the reviewer's comments are fair, they bring up valid points per the WP:WIAFA. You essentially have two options. You can be pleased with the article you have created and stop pursuing further recognition for it. Or, you can collaborate more closely with the reviewers to neutralize their concerns. This latter option may mean that the article does not look exactly the way you envision. It may mean that more significant work needs to be done with offline sources. What is absolutely not workable is continuing to nominate the article in its current state. I request that you do not nominate this article again unless you can be sure that DocKino or Steve will not oppose it. If you choose to nominate again, please include a link on the FAC to a statement from one of them saying that their concerns have been met. If this link is not there, either Sandy or I will remove the nomination. I'm very sorry to have to do this, as it is an extreme step, but given the backlog at FAC, it is not practical to encourage nominations that have been repeatedly opposed for the same reason. Karanacs (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ibarnaoff24, the nomination was archived with two opposes. Please read WP:3RR and refrain from disrupting WP:FAC. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Ibaranoff24, please do not edit war over the archive of your nomination. As the FAC delegates, SandyGeorgia and I determine when to remove nominations. The bot has not run yet to add the archive notice, which may be confusing you, but the nomination has been archived. You will be blocked if you persist on readding it. Karanacs (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Also please see this and WP:FAC/ar about the bot procedure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ibaranoff24. I know you're frustrated, and though it might not seem it, I can well understand. But you've got to realise that accusations such as this are totally unacceptable. You've been shown a lot of slack so far, but I think you're very lucky an uninvolved administrator hasn't spotted that yet. I strongly suggest that you apologise and strike the offending comment; that way, we can all move on. Steve ^T • C 22:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism charge

I see you've made the very serious charge that the promotion of Ralph Bakshi to Featured Article status has been blocked by an antisemitic conspiracy: [1], [2]. If you have made this charge sincerely, please identify exactly who you believe to be the participants in this conspiracy, and provide evidence of their antisemitism. If you have made this charge in a fit of pique, please understand that it is completely inappropriate to make such a provocative accusation without basis and retract the comments. DocKino (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for retracting that comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Incubus Genres

Hey, you said back in June that you couldn't find a source for Incubus being jazz or jazz fusion, here's a few:

http://www.freebase.com/view/en/incubus/-/music/artist/genre
http://www.enotes.com/contemporary-musicians/incubus-biography
http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?albumid=365
http://www.incubusconcerttickets.com/about
Iminrainbows (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bang! Pow! Boom!

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Bang! Pow! Boom! you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Mm40 (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've reviewed the article and put it on hold for seven days for the required changes to be made (nothing major, just me being pedantic). Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No, personnel doesn't need a reference, I just thought it might be nice. All other fixes were made, so I'm passing the article now. Congratulations, and please consider reviewing one or more articles in the GAN backlog (so others don't have to wait two months). Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not spam

I don't know why you're removing all links to "webcomic overlook" and calling them "spam". In many of those articles (for instance, Gunnerkrigg Court) it's used as a reference to source various claims. If you think it's not reliable or something, start a discussion; it's not appropriate to go wiping it out wherever you find it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Limp Bizkit importance

I had initially thought the importance level would be set and scrupulously monitored by the respective WikiProjects, but your revert made me go back and double check. And yeah, common sense prevails - it was originally set at low. Odd that it got changed, but good catch! Cheers SMC (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

re: Mike Patton

I tried to self-revert myself after I understood the clarity you were striving for, but you had beat me to it. Anyway, I am working on not being so hasty. Carry on, --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

fac

FG has been nominated for FAC can you review--Pedro J. ^the rookie 20:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinions?

You are editing sourced content. This is not an opinion-based issue. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The MTV article is being specifically sourced. You are editing the sentence to change what the source says, misrepesenting it. This is against Wikipedia policy. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

GA

Howard the Duck is on hold. Go address the review issues! igordebraga ≠ 03:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

SOAD pic

Noticed you reverted the pic on SOAD. Did you find anything on the net to prove its copyrighted? It must be (watermarked and all), but if nothing is turning up then it makes for a way better picture than the current (if it can be proven as non-copyrighted) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Genres

Oh I'm the one using personal opinion here? Aren't you the one who keeps removing nu metal from everything he touches? Pure hypocrisy. A majority of sources point to Kid Rock being nu metal, three more I have mentioned on his page, sorry but deal with it. RG (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Read my statements over at Talk:Heavy metal music and Talk:Kid Rock. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

Korn Project invite

Collaboration of Punks

HEY HO, LET'S GO!!! Punk rockers—As you know, the Ramones are undeniably the first punk rock band, so it is vital to this genre that we collaborate to improve their scope! So far, I have worked on the band's first three albums, and it would be awesome if all the punks on Wiki would aid in expanding/cleaning the Ramones articles. You can see my progress here. Please fellow fans, do this for the old-school punk. CrowzRSA 17:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

CrowzRSA ^18:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit request

I'm from the Guild of Copy Editors. I was going through the backlog of copyedit requests, and I wanted to check with you – does The Return of Dr. Octagon still need our attention?
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 05:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that article has been copyedited. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC))

Ok, thanks.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 20:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Basehead

The article Basehead you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Basehead for things which need to be addressed. Road Wizard (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding an image. There is just one final issue that I need an answer on before I can pass it for GA. Please respond on the review page. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Roots

Please read Consensus can change. RG (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay these personal attacks and POV pushings are going to far. My edits have nothing to do with you, I had nothing against you until you kept on harassing me. You're a movie guy, remember Bambi. "If you ain't got nothing nice to say..." As well as you're comments against Blackmetalbaz and Wesley Dobbs are going to far. Roots has been sourced as a nu metal album by 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die as well as a death metal album in The Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal. As well as a consensus in favor of these labels. RG (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• RG, you are completely wrong about the POV-pushing, and it is you who is editing against consensus. There was already a consensus in place for alternative metal, and it is the best-sourced genre for that album. You can't just add every single genre ever sourced for any album because you dislike me and want to dick me around. You are extremely out of line and rude. There are warnings all over your talk page for edit-warring, genre-changing, and POV pushing. You clearly are not in a position to make accusatory statements of actions for which you are most definitely guilty of. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

Dude I didn't want to do this and you have done some good work for the Muddy Waters albums, but please see here. RG (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)