User talk:Sugar Bear/Archive02

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 10 January 2007 and 24 May 2007.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to User talk:Ibaranoff24/Archive3. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. (Ibaranoff24 14:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

FA nomination for Lord of the Rings (1978 film)[edit]

Good evening (GMT time); I realise that my comments at the above article's FA nomination and Peer review page have been quite harsh.

Just to let you know, I appreciate everything that you have contributed to the above article, and that you have honoured the encyclopedia with your terrific contributions. However, at Wikipedia we aim for perfection and this may mean we have to pose as pessimists when rating an article :) Please do realise that I do not have anything against you :P If you think I have acted uncivilly or bit you please let me know at my talk page - I'd appreciate any feedback you have for me. If you ever need anything, just drop by my userspace and I'll respond to your comment as soon as I see it. See you around, and keep up the great work!

Regards,
Anthony cfc ^{[T • C]} 20:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

I just noticed that The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) has been promoted to featured article. Congratulations. I've mentioned it at WikiProject Middle-earth over here. As I said there, would you (or any other film editors - I'm assuming you edit mainly film articles, from looking at your contributions list) be interested in working on any of the film articles in Category:Middle-earth adaptations? Please feel free to reply here or at the WikiProject talk page. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for the quick reply. Carcharoth 23:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah[edit]

Too fast, too fast! There's not enough time for me to find new problems :-D. Anyway, I can't find anything else specific that's a problem. It perhaps could do with a little more expansion, if there's any information left in sources but aside from that, looks good. Trebor 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Successful GA Nomination for Wizards (film)[edit]

Your GA nomination of Wizards (film)[edit]

The article Wizards (film) you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Wizards (film) for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations.. I would appreciate it if you'd take a look at The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, for GA although please don't feel obliged to. BigHairRef | Talk 02:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The uncited source you mentioned in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess has been removed DurinsBane87 10:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at the GA nomination. I came to say I've changed it (notes on the talk page if you're interested), but it seems that someone beat me to it. If you're after someone to look at an article in the future I'll be hapy to help. Thanks again! BigHairRef | Talk 12:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tenacious D[edit]

Is it okay if I remove the article from Category:Articles with unsourced statements now. I have lead a citing drive and did not think the article has unsourced statements.

I would put this article back up for nomination if you felt I had covered all the unsourced statements.

Please get back to me.

Tenacious D Fans (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please point them out. I will cite them if you do this. Thanks. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I think there is some POV, so it needs removed. Any more? Tenacious D Fans (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delete the categories (they are unnecessary just now). Can I renominate this? Tenacious D Fans (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I removed the categories. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I remove the notice that the page failed the good article nomination? Tenacious D Fans (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I have dealt with it now and renominated. I decided to remove the failed to pass good article status notice. Thanks again. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess[edit]

Hi Ibaranoff, it's been a week since you put the above article on hold. Is there any chance you could make a decision one way or another? THanks in advance. BigHairRef | Talk 17:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Films Newsletter[edit]

The January 2007 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. Thank you. Nehrams2020 06:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:GA nomination of Ralph Bakshi[edit]

The article Ralph Bakshi you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Ralph Bakshi for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Soldan 16:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Wood user box[edit]

I made a custom version of the user box for myself.

It says:

This user thinks that Ed Wood is the worst director of 
all time, and he loves him for this very reason.

Do you think it would be OK to put this text in the "regular" version of the user box as well?

--Lou Crazy 03:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool World[edit]

Have you yet seen the changes? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cool World[edit]

The article Cool World you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Cool World for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations.--Alabamaboy 20:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freak Out![edit]

You've taken care of some specific examples I gave, but those were just examples; the entire text needs a copy edit. To be honest I think the article is at the peer review stage, and I'd also recomment that you go through the good article process. I can see from the diffs that you have done great work to bring it to this stage, but my overall impression is that the article is still brief, and lack critical insight (as I said there is an abundance of sources out there). To bring it to FA standard the article would need a good copy edit, but also significant expansion. Maybe use 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) as a benchmark. I'll post more copy related comments over the weekend, but more substantive work needs to be done. Ceoil 23:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, my openion would be 'B' class. My offer of helping with the prose stands - when you do add more content, gimme a bell. Ceoil 23:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films February Newsletter[edit]

The February 2007 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. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 23:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Freak Out![edit]

No, I have only withdrawn my objection. ShadowHalo 06:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CineVoter[edit]

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as

Un chien andalou.

Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

--PhantomS 02:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Traffic[edit]

Good job getting those done so quickly. I just wanted to let you know so the article doesn't get quick-failed. I don't assess film articles since I usually make mention of them in the newsletter and Spotlight department, so I don't want people to think that I'm biased in passing them. Keep up the good work, its good to see the several GA/FAs you've been involved in. --Nehrams2020 23:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CineVoter[edit]

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as

Casino Royale (2006 film).

Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

This is an automated notice by BrownBot 21:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC[edit]

Thanks, but I was hoping for wider revision than just the addressing of the examples I listed. Perhaps you can find a good copy-editor who's unfamiliar with the topic. Tony 07:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grindhouse[edit]

Hey, I've been accumulating news headlines via Google Alerts about this film. I'm hoping to help improve it from its rather shoddy state. I'll try to put up some decent citations on the film article's talk page when I get the chance. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March WP:FILMS Newsletter[edit]

The March 2007 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. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 00:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Treehouse of Horror VII[edit]

I noticed in the log that you passed this article as a GA, but didn't provide a review or explanation for it. Are you creating a review for it or something? Homestarmy 19:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Grindhouse Edit War[edit]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing.

Actually, I agree with yer edits. Don't agree how you are going about doin' it. Stop picking on other editors. Page Ownership violation, big no no. Work w/ editors on talk page instead of editwar Tromaintern 23:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CineVoter[edit]

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as

Shaun of the Dead.

Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

--PhantomS 20:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B series[edit]

I like it. Makes me chuckle ("The zom-B's are coming," perhaps). Do you have an opinion about including midnight movie in the series?—DCGeist 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz the Cat (film) copyedit[edit]

Hi! I'm with the WP:LoCE and have completed my copyedit of Fritz the Cat. There were several points where I had questions/issues, which I noted in hidden comments in the text. Generally, one copyeditor works on FAC/FAR requests, so feel free to let me know if you have questions or need me to take a second look. Thanks! Galena11 21:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviewing the changes that you made and everything looks good. I have one more question:

In the lead, you say that "Its success led to a slew of other X-rated animated films", but in the Rating section, you only discuss two films that were released before (?) Fritz. I almost cut the last paragraph of the Rating section because I didn't think it was wholly relevant to the article. It would be better to replace that paragraph with information about the X-rated films that came out after Fritz, thereby supporting your claim of a "slew" of films. Otherwise, I'd suggest removing the "slew" reference in the lead and remove the last paragraph of Rating altogether. Galena11 14:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New paragraph looks great. I think any FA potential copyedit concerns have been addressed. Good luck with FA! Galena11 17:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz the Cat, looking FA[edit]

Thanks for letting me know about the Changes to the article Fritz the Cat. I am happy with the changes made and will change to Supporting the article for FA status. I think people need to look at the Article for its Content and not weather they like the Subject. This page reflects a lot of Hard Work, and should be recognized for that, Thanks Max 20:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey -- just so you know, i've got the FAC on my watchlist. No need to keep leaving the duplicate message on my talk page. Thanks. Mango juice^talk 16:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CineVoter[edit]

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as

The Godfather.

Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

--Crzy cheetah 00:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grindhouse (film)[edit]

I was wondering if you could help me get the article up to GA standards. I see that you were working on the article in the pass and you have much more GA experience for film articles then I do. I probably nominated it too soon anyway, especially with it being in the top 100 viewed articles on Wikipedia. I guess I need to wait for the anons to stop adding the trivia section and inflating the plot sections. Besides these issues, do you think you can help me address the points brought up on the talk page? If you can't that's fine, I'll be able to wait and keep reworking it. --Nehrams2020 22:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I forgot about them. I used them before for my Oklahoma City bombing article and they helped quite a bit. Thanks for making the mention there though. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 22:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the recent cleanup of the page. For the two images of Tarantino and Rodriguez, they have two watermarks at the bottom. I think the images need to be reuploaded and the image be cropped or other replacement images be found. --Nehrams2020 17:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on getting it passed as GA. I guess I should have waited to give you the barnstar now, otherwise I would have given it to you again. I'll mention its passing in the newsletter and Spotlight department. --Nehrams2020 22:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article of the week[edit]

I removed your vote because, per policy, voting doesn't begin on the group of articles you voted on until May 8. You are welcome to enter your vote then. Thank you! Diez2 00:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that, thanks. (Ibaranoff24 01:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

April 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter[edit]

The April 2007 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. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 21:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Movie_dvd_cover_caligula.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Movie_dvd_cover_caligula.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Bigr Tex 19:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zappa VPRO picture[edit]

Hi there! Thanks for noticing the image. I was indeed in doubt about how big images are allowed. Is 300px the max? (I intend to upload few more screnshots, so we have a larger menu of images to choose from to help the Zappa article.) Cheers! --HJensen, talk 18:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response! --HJensen, talk 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Exploitation-film-stub}}[edit]

Hi - I see you have recently created a new stub type. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 01:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plan 9 from Outer Space[edit]

I saw you've been working on "Plan 9". Do you know of any good sources that could be used to write up a production section? Maybe a biography of Ed Wood? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 14:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Good Lookin' (film)[edit]

Nearly everything - you need to wikilink pier, memorial and as you are unable to link hang out or girl-down-the-block rewrite or explain the meaning you intend to convey with these words so that the average casual reader can understand what you are trying to say. Again let me know when you have finished these but this time I will be happy to promote to GA.--VS ^talk 09:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations - notes etc are left on talk page. Excellent work!--VS ^talk 10:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur Verdoux[edit]

What content other than plot or ending details do you expect in the "Plot" section? You apparently think it is an exception from the spoiler/disclaimer guideline, so please explain why the heading is insufficient. Kusma (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warnings[edit]

{{spoiler-blank|Discussion about adding spoiler warnings to articles and about Kusma's sanity follows.}} Please view the MfD and the RfC before you revert any further of my edits, which are in accordance with WP:SPOILER and Template:Spoiler. Thank you, Kusma (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not insane, thank you for asking. You don't need to be insane to think that a section called "plot" contains information about the plot. Also see our No personal attacks policy. Kusma (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{endspoiler}}

The Great Dictator[edit]

You might want to rethink the placement of the "Spoilers end here" information in the article. Kusma (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers[edit]

Please stop reinserting inappropriate spoiler warnings. The em,ergent consensus is pretty well clear by now: spoiler warnings are redundant in pretty much every plot or synopsis section, and always in classic works such as The Great Dctator (after nearly 70 years the cat is definitely out of the bag by now). Guy (Help!) 14:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up, here. Are you aware of the Three revert rule? --Tony Sidaway 08:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop now[edit]

Please stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. The consensus is clear: spoiler tags are redundant in almost all plot sections, and in all classic works of fiction. Edit warring to reinsert tags is lame. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC) {{spoiler}}[reply]

OK, I blocked you for 24 hours. You can be unblocked if you undertake not to resume edit warring over spoiler tags. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{endspoiler}}

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sugar Bear (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Edits are completely valid

Decline reason:

Oh no they aren't. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Per your undertaking not to resume the edit-warring, I have unblocked you. I am watching your contributions, if you continue disrupting Wikipedia you will be blocked again. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]