User talk:Sugar Bear/Archive 6

Dr. Octagon

Hello, Sugar Bear. You have new messages at Thomprod's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Sugar Bear. You have new messages at Sketchmoose's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I don’t really know to which edits you’re specifically referring. The albums are hip-hop music, plain and simple. And for that matter, why did you remove the stuff about Mo Wax? Peace. —MuzikJunky (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ibaranoff24, just to let you know that I've passed The Return of Dr. Octagon for GA. Good work! Cavie78 (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ibaranoff24. I got your copy edit request. Consider it done! I will get started shortly. AikiHawkeye (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I finished your requested copy edit of Dr. Octagonecologyst. I also added a question on the discussion page of that piece. I hope my editing helps your entry! AikiHawkeye (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Chronology; only studio albums.

Dan56 (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah

Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel you, chief......that article's your baby, am I right?? Please, however, look carefully at some of my "cite needed" drop ins.......it still needs a little work. PLEASE DON'T TAKE IT PERSONAL!!!!! THAT'S NOT WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS ALL ABOUT.Buddpaul (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Sugar Bear. You have new messages at Baffle gab1978's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I completed the copy-edit you requested awhile back, and am now watching the FAC discussion. I just wanted to let you know, I'm more than happy to do any other copy work that needs to be done with the article RevZoe (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I did a bit of work, but 3 editors editing at once makes for many edit conflicts.

I'll hit it again later. :)sinneed (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Made another small edit. I think it looks pretty good... at least, I didn't see any obvious way I could make it better. :) Best of luck with your GA efforts!sinneed (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

MedCab Case

Hi there, the MedCab case you requested is open. Mononomic (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films 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 and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror Newsletter - February 2009

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 02:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:SheffieldSteel/list

I thought that you should know that your name is included on what appears to be a personal "hit list" of admin SheffieldSteel's. My name is also included on this inappropriate list. As far as I'm concerned, that list has got to go and the admin in question forced to resign. Caden S (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Given your track record, you are in no position to be complaining about the behavior of other editors. My guess is that it's just a quick reference for problem-users that he's keeping an eye on. But if you've got a problem with it, you should take it to WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Given your track record for being blocked so often, you're in no position to be preaching. Caden S (talk)

Well fine, here's something from a user who hasn't been blocked. I support BB's comment, as it is roughly, if not exactly, the same thing I said on the noted admin's talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was last blocked 14 months ago. I say again, if the user has a problem with that neutral list of names, then he should take it to WP:ANI, otherwise he should drop it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ibaranoff24, this incident is really nothing to do with you; you're one of several editors whose contributions I've been keeping an eye on as part of my admin duties. I can only apologise for the intrusion into your talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Bakshi

Hi. Look, I'm sorry if you're upset about the oppose, but the problems are there, you've accepted that and fixed the specific ones I pointed out. It is not unreasonable of me not to respond in the kind of timescale you seem to expect. The FA process generally takes at least two weeks, and sometimes rather longer. A gap of 36 hours in that context is not a problem. Not all of us have enough free time to be on Wikipedia 24/7. See my further comments at the FAC page. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to do this properly at the moment, but could you look at the section 'Box office decline and return to television' and check whether you're sure that the sentence "In 1986, Bakshi directed the live-action sequences for the Rolling Stones music video "Harlem Shuffle". John Kricfalusi directed the video's animated sequences" is correctly ref'd? Also, there are two sides the story of how Cool World developed, one in ref 31 and a different one in ref 36 - the article currently only gives Bakshi's side of the story and not Mancuso's. I'll be back to do this properly later. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

But ref 1 doesn't actually say that Bakshi directed the video, it says something like he was involved in production. Where did the idea of Bakshi directing live action and Kricfalusi directing the animated sections come from anyway? Do you have a ref that does reflect that, the idea must have come from somewhere! The point about Manusco's story is that he seems to be saying that the revised story was developed by him with Bakshi (he may well be lying, of course!), which contradicts Bakshi version of events in which he was unaware of the changes. The article is basically very good in the broad strokes; what worries me is that every time I pick at the references a bit, I find that the details are not correctly reflected in the article. This is why I asked whether you'd checked through all the refs yourself. I strongly suggest that you need to go through it all from start to finish and make yourself 100% sure that what the article says is what the sources will support. 4u1e (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

But every time I look at a small section I find things that you seem to accept are problems. Do you see why I'm concerned? I'm finished for the night here. I'll try and continue the conversation tomorrow. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

4ule, you seem to just be trying to find a reason to oppose. You need to either list specific issues that need addressed or strike your oppose. You can't give a blanket oppose reason based on some theory of yours. Landon1980 (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You mistake what I'm doing, Landon. As far as referencing goes, I can either check all of the references (which is what I've now done, and withdrawn my oppose), or check a sample. If I check a sample and all appears well, then I'm happy to pass on that basis. Less work for me, less work for the editor. If I check a sample and find what looks to be a general problem, then I expect the person nominating the article to be able and willing to check throughout for that issue without my having to point out every occurence. On this occasion, I've continued to find problems after the article has been checked through, so I've had to wait until I have time to check through everything myself. I'm guessing Ibaranoff won't want us continuing the debate on his talk page, but feel free to respond at my talk page. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

@Ibaranoff. Fair enough re ref 8. The way the quote from Everett is written plain doesn't work - if it's accurately quoted you need to re-write around it to say what Everett was getting at - but that's a different FA criterion and I've no intention of getting into assessing a new one. I've struck my oppose. I actually do like the article, by the way. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Both popular response and critical response are covered by 1b. I'll try to do some further research. Good luck! :-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 22:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I replied at length on the FAC. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like what I'm doing, then ignore me. :-) I am researching Bakshi... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you want good research, don't look at the general Google results. Look at the Google Books and Google News results. These results contained established publications that would be considered reliable sources. We're looking for verifiability and neutrality here. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

Ibaranoff24, I noted that this article's sixth FAC nomination has now been archived and that the last three nominations for this article came in rapid succession. Please, out of respect for reviewers' time, desist from nominating this article over and over hoping it will somehow pass while you continue to disregard serious feedback. I like the article. It's good, but it's not FA quality. I hope you take the feedback you got this time around seriously, and I also hope you realize that because you responded to someone's comments doesn't mean the comments were addressed. A good best practice would be to make good on the actionable feedback, and then contact the opposers before you nominate again to make sure their concerns were addressed. By nominating the article over and over while being standoffish with reviewers, you are only fostering ill-will and making it unpleasant to review your articles. --Laser brain (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• The issues brought up were addressed, or never existed at all. (03:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • A reviewer's comments have been addressed when they consider them addressed, not when you consider them addressed. Learn the difference. --Laser brain (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I've repeatedly commented on the bias of certain sources, while you and other editors have ducked the issue. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

In response to your edits on my talk page, I fail to see the relevance of Peter Jackson's films to do with this; they are not at FAC (nor had they been). There is a tendency of yours to label anything that is severely critical of the subject as invalid, despite the masses of similar opinions held in the books on Google. If the criticism was only from a significantly minor portion of books, then it would have been valid to cast them aside as fringe opinions. That is, however, not the case; there is a significant portion of sources that do not deem the 1978 LotR as a success, commercially or as a story. Similarly, as stated, $30 million is not the big hit as is cast with "The film cost $4 million to produce and grossed $30.5 million at the box office. Despite this, the studio refused to fund the sequel ...'" By using the contrasting preposition, the sentences imply that the studio went against logic and refused the financing of the sequels—coming across as a POV statement. Becks only stated the film was "financially successful", not a big hit; the film did not yield a big profit for the studio (not withstanding the $4 million did not account for marketing and distribution). 1977's The Rescuers grossed $29 million in the US ($71 million worldwide) and cost only appproximately $1.2 million. Compared to those figures, it is not surprising that Mathijs, based on Lowson's information, opined that the takings were "relatively paltry". Many books never claim the 1978 LotR was a financial hit that deserved a sequel either.

It is weird to find that my entire advice is to be ignored and invalid because you have a beef with the critical sources; I wonder about those that are acclaiming the animation. In particular, I have told you to find S. Bruce's Cinefantastique's article, which was referred to in Drout's encyclopaedia. Bruce's fascination with Bakshi's rendition of the fireside scene would be telling of his work on the film, and of help to establish a fair use rationale for the scene in the article. Instead of simply ignoring what others have to offer and trying to discredit their suggestions, it would be best to read their advice without constantly thinking that they are out to get Bakshi or his works. If you believe otherwise, then I think further communication is of no point. Jappalang (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, let's just clear all of this up: I never said that The Lord of the Rings was a "big hit" that deserved a sequel, or wrote that in the article. The article states the facts, and it's pretty clear that regardless of the obvious fact that it made money, it never resulted in a sequel. Throughout history, even minor financial successes have been followed by sequels. Take the recent Pink Panther reboot. That wasn't a "big hit" by any definition, but it produced income, and a sequel followed. MGM would not have produced a sequel if the film had not made money. Likewise, whenever a film makes money, and there's more of a story to be told, it would be assumed that a sequel would be followed. In this case, J.R.R. Tolkien wrote a book. United Artists produced an adaptation of a condensed version of half of it, but did not follow through on the other half in spite of the film producing income. Now, you assume that the $4 million listed budget doesn't cover the cost of marketing. But Fritz the Cat cost only $850,000 to produce. It would be safe to assume that Bakshi had gained experience of how to keep films under budget through his past efforts, and put this knowledge to use on this film. And I never dismissed any sources for criticizing the film. Please do not assume bias on my part when I merely want to present an unbiased view of the film. It's not accurate to present it in such a negative light when its reception was not as poor as you imply. It was a financial success with mixed reviews, simply put. And the history presenting production problems such as Bakshi's disagreements with the studio should explain to viewers why any perceived flaws with the film may have occurred. I'm not saying that the film is not flawed, but that I don't want to present a direct opinion when the general consensus is extremely different from the way it is viewed by fans of Peter Jackson's films, who are largely responsible for the misconception that the film was a despised box office bomb -- which it wasn't.

About the Cinefantastique article — I don't know which article you refer to, or how to find it, but if you had checked the current revision, you would see that I had taken all of the fair use images out of the article, and placed a public domain image in the section referring to Bakshi's fantasy films -- the patent drawing for the rotoscoping technique - which properly illustrates the section without the need for a fair use image or a rationale for such images. I intend on looking over the article to see which fair use images I can place in the article that would illustrate the content without appearing to be merely decorative, if any are needed. The article is currently under peer review, so the next FA nomination should not be as chaotic as this one. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

The current changes have resolved the issues I had for the section. About the Cinefantastique, I did mentioned in the FAC (look in the Image review section) that the J.R.R. Tolkien Enclyclopedia uses it; it cited the publication, so using the citation details in the encyclopedia, check if your library has the magazine (Google does not have limited or full previews of Cinefantastique). As I have said, that review if integrated would greatly enhance the "fair use" value of the fireside scene (check out Sebastian Shaw for how a similar situation for fair use is handled—his appearance as Anakin Skywalker). I need to point out something—marketing and distribution is not part of the $4 million budget (which is production costs) because it is handled by the studio, hence Bashki would not have anything to do with those costs, and that is why the $30.5 million might not be a big profit. Modern films of $40 million budget that are hoped to be big hits are often said to have marketing and distribution of $120 million and above, which is why the media sometimes quip that they have to earn 5 times the budget to break even. Good luck. Jappalang (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I work in the film industry. I do not need you to tell me how the financial aspects of the industry work. (Ibaranoff24 (talk))

You might work in the industry, but your thinking that studios would produce sequels for a $4 million production budget film that grossed $30.5 million without considering marketing and distribution costs (and dismissing others who think otherwise), and that Bakshi controls the marketing (what has production budget to do with this?) requires a relearning of the movie-making process.[1][2] It is becoming evident that any remark that exposes flaws in your comments is construed by you as an attack and responded to with defensiveness, an attitude that should be reconsidered. Jappalang (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I said and my comment wasn't intended as an attack. I'm sorry if you perceived it this way. (Ibaranoff24 (talk))

I finished the copyedit, and left a few suggestions on the Talk page. MSJapan (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I will try and find time to review the Bakshi article a bit more, but if I don't, have you considered asking previous reviewers to have another look? I'm still trying to work out how the whole "too much"/"too little" criticism of the Lord of the Rings film bit should be handled. It's tricky. Some people at WP:RINGS might also be interested in this if you want to ask them. Though obviously Bakshi did more than just that film, it's through that film that I heard of him. Carcharoth (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Left another comment at the review. I'm not quite sure where the article goes from here, but I would avoid repeated FAC nominations. At least have some substantial changes, or show that you've picked over the reviews with a fine toothcomb. Carcharoth (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ice Ice Baby

Hey, I'm Hunter. I started my GAN review of Ice Ice Baby. Please check out the review page to start addressing the suggestions. Thanks! -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• I just checked and it seems to be there. Go to the article's talk page, look at the GA header and click on the part that says "Review page." If you need a direct link, go here. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Almost all the objections are gone; I'm hoping you can just add a brief description of the music video itself, then I think we're good. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Passed. Thanks for your patience! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

4u1e

Hi. I'm on holiday, out of the country and mostly away from computers, so no, I won't be commenting. Hope all is going well. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror Newsletter - March 2009

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 00:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2009 Newsletter

The February 2009 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. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Adult animation

Hey Ibaranoff24, I saw your request at User talk:AnEmptyCageGirl and thought I could offer some unsolicited comments (unfortunately, I don't have time to do a real copyedit either).

First of all, if you are planning on taking the article to FAC, I would also recommend you go through WP:GAN (or, if you're one of the people who doesn't believe in GAN, you could get a peer review). For one thing, if you're lucky and get one of the good reviewers, you pretty much get a free copyedit along with it; more importantly, they'll help bring in lots of suggestions for improvement.

As for the article itself...

• one thing that jumps out is that you could probably find a lot more images to illustrate the article. My impression is that this is sort of the parent article for lots of subtopics that fall under the umbrella of "adult animation," and lots of those child articles are illustrated with free images that you could steal. (First example off the top of my head is Lolicon... I feel like a perv for knowing about that article, but it actually pops up a lot in discussions about decency and whatnot....)
• Do you have any references identifying the term "adult animation" as a real classification that's used by the industry and stuff? I feel like that's the sort of thing people will want to see. Obviously we can all group these numerous forms of animation under "adult animation," but it would also be useful to see if it's an officially recognized classification in some way or another.
• Like I said above, this strikes me as something that is sort of a parent article for lots of things, and as such I think it should have some more organization/heirarchy/navigational aids to direct readers to more specific articles and helps show the organization and relationships between different subgroups of adult animation (after all, this category seems to include stuff as diverse as Adult Swim animation, hentai, and serious films like Persepolis). Seealso section, {{main}} or {{further}} templates, maybe even a navigational {{adult animation}} template (along the lines of {{journalism}}, {{linguistics}}, or other nav templates)...stuff like that.
• More of a minor quibble, but the References section would be more reabable if you divided it into a Notes section (using short-form citations like "Cohen, p. 25" or "Cohen 1997:25") and a Bibliography section with the full citations. For an example of what I'm thinking, see Nothing To My Name#Notes. Also, I don't know if it's necessary to divide the Cohen book up by chapters; you could probably cite it all as Cohen 1997 (but using different footnotes for different page numbers).
• Another minor thing...I was surprised not to see mention of Adult Swim or related ventures. I'm not an expert in this area, but I imagine modern things like that, Matt Groening, etc., must be relevant. Also, while I assume this article is meant to just be about animation animation, I wonder if it would also be useful to have at least a note or small section about manga and webcomics and stuff like that, which don't move but are still cartoons directed at adult audiences.

Hope this is helpful, and best of luck, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, I see you added Adult Swim at the same time I was writing this! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving Article Talk pages

I deleted it - thanks for the heads up. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not archive by moving the pages, this creates a seperated history, and makes it difficult for various users to find the correct version of the page. I am reverting your move, and giving the page a bot archival instead.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Coordinator Election

Hello, Sugar Bear. You have new messages at Udonknome's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2009 Newsletter

The March 2009 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) 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Horror Music

Even though you deleted your query, the answer is in the project's scope description: "This project's scope does not include musicians or songs that could be constituted as horror-oriented; e.g. Misfits (band), Skinny Puppy, or White Zombie." Thanks for asking, though. hornoir (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Black Sabbath article status

I am very encouraged by your estimation of the quality of the Black Sabbath article. I (any several others) have been working to get it recognized as a good article and it is waiting tobe reviewed now. If you have the time and interest please consider reviewing it the nomination is here here. J04n(talk page) 10:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror Newsletter - April 2009

The WikiProject Horror Newsletter Volume I, no. 3 / April 2009 Previous issue The Coordinator nomination has been extended! Please go to the nomination page now to add yourself to the election for a coordinator position. Voting will begin on May 1st. The current Collaboration of the Month (The Texas Chain Saw Massacre) has been extended by a month! The next collaboration will be selected on April 30th, 2009. Please place suggestions for the next collaboration here and/or vote on current suggestions. → Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 05:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Internet Movie Database Yea, no problem. I figured I'd add it and see what others would do with it. Like I said on the Project page, finding sources was the problem. Kane always talks about being a juggalo at signings (there are videos on youtube), and IMDB was the only written ref I could find for it. It was used on the Deadhead page, so I used it in ours. Anyways, do with the list what you will, that's why I put it up. Juggalobrink (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC) talkback Hello, Sugar Bear. You have new messages at Theseeker4's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Mediation Hello, I am the mediator who has accepted a case involving you with the Mediation Cabal. I have created this section on the talk page of System of a Down as a place to attempt to resolve this dispute. I greatly anticipate your comments in the discussion and hope we can work this dispute out quickly. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry about that I apologize for not responding to your earlier message — I must have missed it with other new items on my talk page. Anyway, I've struck my oppose vote, but I'd still like to see the writing clarified. Good luck with it! Scartol • Tok 17:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Adult animation talkpage I think now might be a good time to archive old discussions on that page. It was a pain in the rear to scroll down! :) CarpetCrawlermessage me 06:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Article is on hold, view the talkpage for details. :) CarpetCrawlermessage me 20:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC) OK. I'm at work right now, so it will take me a little bit longer to fully re-look over the article. Have a good day! CarpetCrawlermessage me 20:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC) OK, the article passes now. Great job! :) CarpetCrawlermessage me 02:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Reply I am perfectly aware of WP:V. However, your comparison to a WP:BLP situation is not justified. When discussing musical genres there is in general a degree of terminological difference between various journalists regarding any given band; whilst one journal or journalist may use, say, "nu metal", another may use "alternative metal". I am not suggesting that the two are always interchangeable, although it appears one is considered a subset of the other. The sources you repeatedly remove from the List of nu metal bands are perfectly reliable... despite your claim to the contrary, MusicMight is not user-edited in the same way as something like a wiki, and is edited by Garry Sharpe-Young, a notable rock journalist and historian with a large number of books on the subject to his name, published by the third party Cherry Red. Similarly, Allmusic biographies and reviews are considered reliable sources; both Allmusic and MusicMight have been questioned as RSes in the past and been considered so by consensus. Tommy Udo is another highly notable rock journalist with an impeccable pedigree; I posted his CV on the relevant talk page, and feel little more needs to be said about his credentials. He is also the author of one of the few books to specifically deal with the phenomenon of nu metal; he devotes entire chapters to bands like Korn, Linkin Park, Slipknot, Deftones and, importantly for the purposes of this discussion, System of a Down and Kittie. Further lengthy coverage is devoted to Hed PE and Powerman 5000. This is far from trivial coverage, and is within a commercially-released, print source through an established publisher (Sanctuary Publishing). I would like to take the time to apologise for my initial accusation of vandalism, but still respectfully disagree with your position on this issue... plenty of reliable sources have been provided, and many more could be found. I'm not sure how many you would need to see before agreeing with these bands' inclusion on such a list, and am concerned that the answer may be that there could never be enough. I would also like to point out that there is no problem with, say, System of a Down existing on both a list of nu metal bands and a List of alternative metal artists. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC) The coverage is trivial if it is sporadically termed by individuals of questionable importance. As I've repeatedly stated, what appears in any given article is not a reflection of the "facts", just what is sourced. This single author is not sufficient enough to source any one genre. And I should point out that in the cases of bands whose articles that no one has devoted any time to researching or editing, you may take it upon yourself to find enough sources to establish the content. And I am fully aware that "alternative metal" in some cases is used in place of "nu metal". Some writers also confuse "rap metal" with "nu metal", or "post-grunge" with "nu metal", or "industrial metal" with "nu metal", or "hardcore" with "nu metal", or "groove metal" with "nu metal". In many instances, the use of any given genre term towards any given musical artist may appear vague or inconsistent. That's why we have to look for the best-sourced content. And in the case of System of a Down, there is a problem, because through the research that has been done on the band, it was established that "experimental" and "progressive" popped up more often than "nu metal" in describing the band. Furthermore, when a band such as Hed PE is not generally considered to be any genre of metal or heavy metal, there is no reason to list that band on a page describing metal. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)) edit warring Five months ago I unblocked you because you said you wouldn't edit war anymore and so far as I know, you stopped, but you seem to be slipping into it again at List_of_nu_metal_bands. Instead of removing sourced content over and over, please discuss the sources on the category talk page and see also User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Ibaranoff24. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Absolutely no edit warring has occurred here. I expressed a valid concern that the inclusion of multiple bands on this list may not reflect the overall sourced content. Blackmetalbaz initially ignored my concerns, but now seems to understand. This isn't about any single source. It's about the overall brevity of combined sources. Focusing too heavily on one or two sources when the overall research concludes that the genre term is not being used accurately in any given instance does not reflect WP:Verifiability. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)) Ibaranoff, you seem to be slipping back into your old ways and this is your last warning: Please stop edit warring at List_of_nu_metal_bands. Whatever you may think about Nu metal as a stylistic category, it has verifiable support and you can't whittle it away on en.Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nu_metal_(2nd_nomination) was an unhelpful nomination, given that the last one you did also ended in a speedy keep and I think most editors saw this as yet another flank of your edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Absolutely no edit warring has ever occurred. Surely you have better things to do than to outright harass me on my talk page? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)) Good faith warnings by an admin are not harassment. If you carry on edit warring I will re-block you. Please stop edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Threats absolutely are harassment. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC))