User talk:Sugar Bear/Archive10

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.

Wikiquette alerts:

I posted my review of your behavior on the Wikiquette alerts page. Feel free to add your comments. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added commentsw also. --Diannaa (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Name and contributions

(From WQA). If you don't like your username, change it or create a new account, just follow the multiple name policy.

As far as contributions, there's always new page patrol , redlink projects, new page patrol, and WP:RFC. Happy editing! Gerardw (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2010 Newsletter

The January 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. 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) 00:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2010 Newsletter

The January 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. 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) 00:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

african diaspora

hi. according to the page "WikiProject African diaspora aims to improve all articles related to the cultural contributions of people of African descent all over the world. " this seems to apply. if it really does not belong in the project i would appreciate that someone involved in the project would remove it rather than you. doesnt this seem reasonable? Aisha9152 (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

as you saw it was something that should be in the project. please try to make sure of things before you undo peoples changes in the future because if you dont it is a big waste of everyones time. thanks. Aisha9152 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Kid rock and FNM

Guidelines are just that, not rules and actually you do against a wikilaw(WP:RS) by failing to provide any sources calling FNM, funk rock. Also, you don't even follow the guidelines half the time(you kept alt. metal in the box another metal sub.) Hate to break it to you, but everything but pop is a subgenre. So are we going to label Kid rock and FNM pop acts? No because it is correctly incorrect. RG (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's the reason why my talk page has a pile of warnings over neutrality-based edits. Oh, wait, no, it doesn't, that's your talk page. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC))

Very recently there was a death in my family and I really don't want to have an argument here, so can you please keep this civil? The bands you keep putting "dubious" next to all have sources next to them stating the bands are nu metal, even if you feel they aren't nu metal(something you don't even think is real) you can not remove them because they are sourced. I don't think Evanescence, Tool, Puddle of Mudd, etc. are nu metal, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to remove them from the list. And the source for Kid Rock does actually state that he is nu metal. You can even see the book on google books. Have a nice night. RG (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, the sources do not say what the person who added them claims they say. Opinion can run two ways. You can't add bands that you feel are nu metal to the list, and I can't remove bands that I feel aren't nu metal when the source says otherwise. But, in the case of the sources cited, nothing is being said. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC))

"I can't remove bands that I feel aren't nu metal" Are you freaking kidding me? Do you not hear the irony in that statement at all? That's all you have been doing and you are putting dubious to bands that are sourced because you don't want them associated with the "useless catchphrase." And read the ref for Kid rock. Here doesn't say he isn't nu metal. This is getting hopeless, do not add dubious to sourced bands on the list and do not remove referenced bands. It's that simple, stop the POV pushing. RG (talk)01:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You're one to talk of "irony" when you scream at me to stop doing the one thing that I'm not doing - the one thing that you are doing. Why don't you stop POV pushing, and contribute? (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC))

Carnival of Carnage

Will do. I'll get on it tomorrow. Juggalobrink (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the sources and the article. I've also added the genre political hip hop due to its large political influence and message. Juggalobrink (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on the deletion of Blaze's albums. I'll begin some work on the articles now. Also, I've looked over Behind the Paint and I don't believe there is anything else to add to Carnival of Carnage. Juggalobrink (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2010 Newsletter

The February 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. 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) 04:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review

Hi there. I noticed that you are a member of WikiProject:Albums. The article Carnival of Carnage is currently a Good Article nominee, but is on a long backlog. Would you be interested in reviewing the GAN? (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC))

• Hi, well thank you for ask me for review the article, but the problem is my english is not as good for pass or fail any article. Of course, I can review it and comment on the talk page some changes could be done. Tbhotch^Talk 02:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

List of nu metal bands

As always, we have a problem. The consensus is indeed quite clear on the talk page for this article (please see Archive 1, "Misrepresentation of sources" downwards) where you cannot find another single editor to agree with your position. Band's own talk pages are not relevant here, as the intro already reads "have been described as nu metal by professional journalists". We have already had an inconclusive RfC, but another may be useful. However, until you can point me towards a consensus for this article on its talk page, stop removing sourced material. If you want consensus, the closest we have is here, where you simply disagree with every other editor that contributes to this article. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no consensus there... where is there a consensus of editors agreeing on how we are going to proceed? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Rockgenre Sockpuppetry

As I said in the archive, this is essentially a case where two users have the same opinion in a content dispute, as J.delanoy has said. The evidence presented by you in the SPI case fails to draw any thing else against these users other than their edits on the page Kid Rock, and even those edits aren't particularly conclusive, take for instance this edit summary by Greg. But the content dispute on Kid Rock besides, these users are massively different in their general attitude on wikipedia, and they have massively different styles of editing. Also, I can't see where these users would have violated 3rr if they were socks. For those reasons I fail to see a link between these accounts, and archived the case. If you have any new evidence to present, then let me know on my talk page. Please do not reopen the case again.
Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Kid Rock

We have multiple books and sources from MTV and Rolling Stone. Your opinion that these are not reliable is just that, a point of view. And we have an established consensus. In layman's terms: Nu metal should stay in the infobox. Plain and simple. Thank God almighty that the page was protected. Also for these issues please see the article's talk page and not individual editor's talk pages. RG (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• There was no consensus for your POV. The consensus was to keep the genres generalized, per the guidelines. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

You are not multiple editors. You are one editor. Multiple editors say that the nu metal inclusion is absolutely justified and yet again may you please take this to the article's discussion page and not mine? RG (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop mocking me. There's no consensus to justify your actions, or the inclusion of poor sources, such as a book that was not written by a music expert, and a concert ticket site. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

"Please stop mocking me.", not funny. Be serious will you? "a book that was not written by a music expert", pure opinion, nothing more. Now take this to the Kid Rock talk page not my talk page. RG (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I did that, and all I got back was "you're just trying to ruin the article because you hate Kid Rock and nu metal". And, seriously, you were mocking me. I don't see how you can justify stating that you weren't, considering that you fed back to me something that I told you, which, by the way, still holds true. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Lets Put The Past Behind Us, and Start Clean

[1]--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Better Days

You are aware that "someone said it was well sourced and written" and "it gets a lot of hits" are not indications of notability, right? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^(Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2010 Newsletter

The March 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. 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) 03:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Electric Mud

The article Electric Mud you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Electric Mud for eventual comments about the article. Well done! –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

nu metal

You're currently arguing against six sources and six editors, and you've claiming that a direct cite saying Incubus is nu-metal, by perhaps the top music magazine ever, is not legitimate. Just accept that they're going to be listed and move on. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 18:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is a WP:RS. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 18:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't trust them as a source, then it's up to you to file a complaint or whatever and to have them removed as an RS. 18:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Carnival of Carnage

I will certainly look at the suggestions and work on the article. Unfortunately, I've had a lot to do recently and won't be able to spend much time on it until tomorrow or Saturday though. Juggalobrink (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: POV-pushing

No, I won't cease telling people that they're POV-pushing, but thanks for the suggestion. --LordNecronus (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS April Newsletter

The April 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. 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) 23:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)