User talk:Sugar Bear/Archive01

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 24 August 2005 and 5 January 2007.

Post replies to the

Please add new archivals to

Welcome!

Hello, Sugar Bear/Archive01, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Nice work on The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)! The article is looking much better than it did only a few days ago. Good work! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The anon editor who's been causing problems over the last few days put a personal attack against you in an image caption, claiming that you faked the "Part 1" subtitle on the

It is considered misbehaving to delete the comments of others from talk pages (See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable_on_Wikipedia). Furthermore, it is deceitful to label the deletion of an entire section as a "minor edit". Dystopos 05:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put the image on

For what reason did you put Image:King Kong (early colorized version).jpg up for speedy delete? Please use the {{db|insert reason here}} tag in the future, so as to aid administrators. Enochlau 02:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a more famous image from the colorized version of the movie into the "film colorization" article, so I felt I didn't need that other image. (

Ibaranoff24 02:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC))[reply

]

Help people instead of insulting them, huh? If you could, please revisit your December 10 [1] comments and see who started the personal attacks. Also, please read the comments I have left in the Infobox talk page. I am not and don't pretend to be high and mighty, as you so sarcastically put it. However, if you insist on resorting to purile and personal jibes, I seriously hope you don't expect me to sit around and take that kind of nonsense from you. If you, on the other hand, seriously want to improve the quality of the infobox, I will help you any way I can. As I have said in the infobox talk page, I you have the necessary information on the LoTR animated films, please pass that along to me and I will help you put them in the infobox. AreJay 22:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have a Proper and Merry Crimbo. File:Pressie.gif, in fact here is a pressie from the Doctor to you. Ho. Ho. Ho! File:Unclecrimbo.gif Dr. McCrimbo 22:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed it, but there's a bit at the top of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates that says "Please do not place more than one nomination at a time — this makes it difficult to do each article and its objections justice." Based on that, I'd suggest picking one and withdrawing the rest for now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I appreciate your support for my nomination of the Wellington article but, not be intruding or eavesdropping, I must agree with "Bunchofgrapes."--Anglius 05:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Just wounder, are you from jeresy? Some of your recent updates/nominations are topics a friend of mine has been mentioning to me latly. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No,

Ibaranoff24 06:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC))[reply

]

• Umm I'm not too sure wether you understood me or not - Just saying 'Good article.' is not a reason, thats a statement - You need to say why you think it is a good article and make sure this complies with the FA criteria. Thanks! —
  Wackymacs 02:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You've added this twice to Dr. No and I've now reverted you twice because it's redundant. Category:James Bond films is already a subcategory of Category:United Artists films. Hope you understand. K1Bond007 01:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you make a number of edits adding links to Movie Tome and Legend Films... Considering your contribution history I can only wonder if these links are being made for self-promotional purposes or what. You seem to have contributed good information on these topics, otherwise these kinds of actions (lots of link dropping) would have lead me to immediately undo your edits as spam. At this point I am only asking why your edits seem to be so one-sided at this time. DreamGuy 02:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never intended any of my links for spam purposes, nor do I intend my edits to be one-sided. If you see any Legend Films links that seem grevious, go ahead and delete them (but if the company does release a colorized version of a certain film, it should at least be mentioned in the article). But I don't think that the Movie Tome links should be deleted -- it would be one-sided to link to the Internet Movie Database page and not to Movie Tome, in my opinion. (

Ibaranoff24 02:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC))[reply

]

Also, I do not work for Legend Films, if that is what you are inquiring. (

Ibaranoff24 02:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC))[reply

]

Wikipedia:Votes_for_best_User_page

Best regards,

Hi, I don't understand why you would list this image for deletion because it's incorrectly tagged, when you could easily correct the tag. I have changed the tag to film-screenshot which is the same tag as thousands of other acceptable images. Could you now please remove this from images for deletion. thanks Rossrs 20:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

From

WP:EL: "External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page." Also:"Links to normally avoid...A website that you own or maintain..." I'm not suggesting that this is your website; I contend that geocities/angelfire/forums/etc are unencyclopedic and unreliable links to include. -- Krash (Talk) 05:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• I changed the link, but I do not consider Geocities/Angelfire websites to be unencyclopedic. Forum links can be unencyclopedic, but there are exceptions to this rule, such as if the info is from an official forum, and directly from the mouth of an official person (such as the director of a film). (
  Ibaranoff24 05:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC))[reply
  ]

A reasoning behind that is due to the fact that a lot of individuals who create those pages tend to use hearsay and conjecture and attempt to pass it off as factual content. It is often hard to gauge whether or not the information on such sites is based in solid fact or mixed with rumours and other such things. 63.233.87.189 07:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, I didn't know Category:People who worked with David Lynch existed. Powers 12:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you created some cool userboxes...how do you do that?Osbus 18:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I copied the code from some other userboxes, added in my own text, changed the colors around, and sometimes, added pictures that I felt were appropriate. In the case of the anti-colorization userbox, I took a free-licensed image of a rainbow, removed the color, and re-uploaded the image under a separate name using the same license. (
  Ibaranoff24 02:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC))[reply
  ]

I noticed that you tagged the page

Stop accusing other people of vandalism when it's really a content dispute.--Prosfilaes 00:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken this conversation to my talk page; however, I have reported your 3RR violation on

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.--Prosfilaes 00:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding article Wizards (film) :

• Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be
  revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 12:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think many who would take our side against the menace of censorship do not know about this poll. If you have some time to spare, would you mind posting a short message on their talk page (like mine) to let them know of this poll and invite them to voice their opinions? By involving more people, a larger portion of the Wikipedia community can have their say, for or against the policy. Some places you can go for a list of users are Wikipedia_talk:Censorship#Support, Category:Wikipedians_against_censorship and Category:Wikipedians_opposed_to_censorship_of_the_human_body as well as any friends you might have. Please check that I've not already posted a message with the heading Wikipedia_talk:Censorship in their talk page to avoid double-postings. If you don't have the time, feel free to ignore this request. Thank you.Loom91 09:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sugar Bear/Archive01, do you want to join CAUBXD?

CAUBXD is a "campaign" against the deletion of

Freddie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 16:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde is attempting to get into CAUBXD! Go to the CAUBXD page and click on the last "e" in User:Fredil Yupigo/Signature! Hurry! Freddie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 18:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed your name on the

]

HCOTM

We have a winner!

You showed support for the status . We hope you can contribute.

--Fuhghettaboutit 12:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom, Isaac. Help save the cult films page! It's become madness. Jonathan F 07:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources confirming the point of the game is to kill anyone who does not convert to Christianity? List them. And prove they know what they are talking about. The secular reviews by people who have played the game completely contradict the nonsence espoused by Talk2Action. Check them out here:

Some quotes from gamers who have played the game:

• Players aren't competing to kill the enemy army -- rather, they're trying to save them, and each person killed represents a failure rather than a success. "We found that adhering closely to Biblical philosophies made the game more interesting rather than less," Lyndon said. "One of the key elements of that is to make sure that the player sees that every life is important and precious."

• As you'd expect, you'll be encouraged to do good while playing the game, but you may also do evil, as well. Like many real-time strategy games, Eternal Forces features a variety of resources that you need to accumulate to build units. One of these resources is your spiritual rating, which measures how good or evil you are. If your troops kill civilians and innocents, your spiritual rating drops, and if it drops too much, you may see your units defect (each unit has his or her own spiritual rating), and if drops too far, demons will show up.

• Killing civilians will definitely make you a friend of the devil.

• The forces of evil mirror the forces of good, with the notable difference that the abilities of evil will decrease spirit, while those of good raise spirit (except for killing, which lowers spirit, no matter what).

Clearly the descriptions about killing are erroneous and should be dropped from this entry. Don't you even care about the truth? Such balatant disregard for it is rather shocking. Layman 15:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do YOU care about the truth?

The Los Angeles Times and the Sioux City Journal both report killing. If you have a source more legitimate than my three sources, I'd like to see it. (

Yes, you are fighting the armies of the anti-Christ. But to leap from that to say you kill Jews, gays, etc. because they do not convert is a lie. You are lying. My entry does not deny there is killing, but that you are on a mission to convert or kill those who do not convert to Christianity. That is the outrageous lie you are repeating without real support. Layman 16:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "My entry does not deny there is killing"

Yes, it does. (

Ibaranoff24 16:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC))[reply

]

Where? I note in the first paragraph that there is armed conflict between the armies of the anti-Christ and the Tribulation Force. What I clarify is that you do not kill people because they fail to convert. Yes, you may kill anti-Christ soldiers who are trying to kill you. But you do not kill noncombatants who decline to convert to Christianity. You keep repeating that lie with no support. Layman 16:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear for you, this is the outrageous lie you are repeating: "Players are issued high-tech military weaponry, and set on a mission to convert or kill Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, and anyone who advocates the separation of church and state."

Show me where you find support for that in the LA Times? You can't. You are getting that from an anti-Christian site that is spewing propganda. You are buying it hook, line, and sinker. Be a little critical. Read the reviews I link to that are reviews by gamers who have actually played an early version of the game. Layman 16:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Idiot...please do not talk to me, alright? Go spread your bullshit someplace else, okay? You are taking up too much space on my Talk page. (
  Ibaranoff24 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC))[reply
  ]

I'm a huge film guy and I like wikipedia so I decided to put the two together. While my grammar's not the best others fix it for me; so I feel like i'm the big idea sorta person. My favorites are 70s dystopic future flicks like soylent green, marathon man, logan's run, etc. and I also weird ass indie stuff like twenty bucks, chumscrubber. Check out my myspace (Garrett8888) I put a bunch more movies on there. Andman8 17:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for future reference, any promotion above the B-level in the Wikifilm Project, must be done through the Official GA or FA process!--P-Chan 17:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Althought I think your assessment of an A is pretty close.--P-Chan 08:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you leave your two cents about the

Thanks for considering my request. ---Joel Russ

I didn't properly sign trhe above off. But I'll properly sign this off. --Joel Russ 13:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a disambiguation page for Jeff Simmons and moved the prior article to another location. Per

Hello, again. The favour of a reply would be appreciated. It looks like someone else has done much of the original clean-up but there are a few left to be done. I've also noticed that you have created or moved at least 2 additional disambiguations for other articles and have not done the clean-up. Per

Brian G 15:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi! Just in case you're not watching the page, I wanted to let you know I replied to you at Talk:Carnivorous plant 1#Popular culture concerning the popular culture section. I wanted to get your opinion on what I noted there. Thanks! Best, Rkitko 01:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Thanks for your attention to that article and talk page. I replied again, if you wish to look it over. Grazie. Best, Rkitko 08:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea that book was a peice of shit. all apologies, what references would you reccommend? Another question, how the fuck did I delete the whole second part of the page? I don't know how the hell I managed to do that, but then again, i'm relatively new.The Guilty Undertaker

• The only reference I truly recommend is Zappa's own book, The Real Frank Zappa Book. (
  Ibaranoff24 21:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC))[reply
  ]

<div style="float:{{{float|left}}}; border:{{{border-width|{{{border-s|1}}}}}}px solid {{{border-color|gray}}}; margin:1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px; background:{{{info-background|beige}}};"
| style="width:45px; height:45px; background:{{{logo-background|black}}}; text-align:center; font-size:{{{logo-size|{{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}}}}pt; color:{{{logo-color|{{{id-fc|black}}}}}};" | '''{{{logo|[[Image:Caligari.JPG|63px]]}}}'''
| style="font-size:{{{info-size|{{{info-s|8}}}}}}pt; padding:4pt; line-height:1.25em; color:{{{info-color|{{{info-fc|black}}}}}};" | {{{info|This user '''[[The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920 film)|is Caligari!]]'''}}}
|}</div>

--Cyde Weys 15:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion has started at

Hello, I noticed that you uploaded this picture and had a couple of questions. You originally said that it was "taken from a public domain print", can you elaborate further on this and find an applicable new template for it that states clearly how it is PD? Right now the template is changed from {{

Elrond doesn't have a Bakshi image at the moment. Thanks! Uthanc 06:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The

Chances are, when someone signs their post, puts it in the image's talk page (so it's not apparent), and doesn't negatively effect Wikipedia, it's not really vandalism is it? Just a bit of good humor. I won't revert, but I just wanted to say that I'm not a vandal, but an ordinary user --Planetary 01:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that detail - didn't know that. The issue is that the word "the" doesn't really make much difference to most people, it's still a bit confusing.

The problem is that most people won't be aware of the difference between two films, one of which is titled "Little Shop of Horrors" and the other titled "The Little Shop of Horrors". So it's worth putting the year in as well, to prevent confusion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth thinking of people who don't know about all 3 versions. Someone just looking up the 1960 or 1986 version will not know that the word "the" was present or not in one or other title, and articles which link to one or the other will run the risk of ambiguity. You shouldn't rely upon the word "the" to distuinguish them. In that circumstance its probably good practice to put the year in the title, because it ensures that there is explicit clarity . FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The