User talk:Cyphoidbomb

Happy Tree Friends - Broadcast & Owned (reverted my Information)

Hi, My name is Drajat Achmad Imransyah or Imran from Indonesia. By The Way, Happy Tree Friends is not broadcast in National TV Station Indosiar because KPI (Indonesian Broadcasting Commission) can't allow any violence cartoon/anime in Television. And where do you got a information about Happy Tree Friends owned by Surya Citra Media? That is a HOAX. Thank You. imranfreak (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2015 (GMT+8)

Prem ratan dhan payo

Sir please add official teaser poster in prem ratan dhan payo article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslishiva (talk • contribs)

Thankyou for pointing out

I have edited with proper reference and there is no reference to the numbers from Afghanistan as the kho people mainly reside in Pakistan. Thankyou and can you please check the numbers nowKho people. Also if its still wrong can you please correct them accordingly . thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

Happy Holidays!

Favre1fan93 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Dilwale

"Second highest-grossing film to star a guy with a beard."

Okay, that was genuinely funny. No, I liked it a lot.

Aah, the gift. You know you always had it. Just speak a word and people start laughing. The gift to make people laugh. So far, you've been a successful joker with your stupid summaries and talks. I hope you can keep up the good work. Kudos!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillShowU (talk • contribs)

BFlatley

Sigh...just come off his 2-month block and here we go again... Betty Logan (talk)

Neerja

Hello, this is to inform you that a bot again removed the article's entry from Wikipedia:Good article nominations page. Here's the source. I think that you are an admin so you can help. What to do? ЖunalForYou (☎️✍) 06:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Kunalforyou, in this case, another editor pulled the plug of the GA nom arguing that it was premature. I'm inclined to agree. Good Articles need to be stable, and this is a brand new release, so details are still in fluctuation. The plot section contains sentence fragments, unnecessary parentheticals, and so forth. "Reveal" and "Revealed" are used too liberally, there are grammar issues, etc. The article isn't ready for GA. Hope that helps. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, you are correct! I should had seen that, before coming here to you. Any way, doesn't matter. ЖunalForYou (☎️✍) 05:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Missing episode.

I was bold and closed the silly request at WP:ANI, which is not intended for content disputes. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution may be a good article to read. Cheers, Kleuske (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Truth

I am not here to dis you, i respect your dedication to knowledge on certain subjects. I just want to clarify here why i made my edits: An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia (also spelled encyclopædia, see spelling differences) is a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. Encyclopedias are divided into articles or entries, which are usually accessed alphabetically by article name. Encyclopedia entries are longer and more detailed than those in most dictionaries. Generally speaking, unlike dictionary entries, which focus on linguistic information about words, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning - the subject for which the article is named. If there is a chronological discrepancy in the TV series' episode airings, it should be clearly stated in the episode list. Any information on the subject, trivial or not, can be included in the article, it makes them more interesting to read while staying objective. Nelatti (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nelatti Information about chronological discrepancies needs to come from reliable published sources, not from your personal observations and interpretations. When you arrive at a conclusion on your own like "This is a chronological error which can be attributed to the writers or the air-date of the episode", you're not introducing definitive facts into the article, you're introducing vague opinions. Clearly you don't know why there might be a chronological error, so you're attempting to guess. Guessing isn't allowed at Wikipedia because it constitutes original research. Same with "unlike the rest of her family, her name does not allude to the word 'impossible', possibly due to the fact that she is a Possible via marriage, not birth." It's not our job to guess why a cartoon character doesn't share the same name as another cartoon character. While there could be a more complex answer built upon a detailed family tree as you've posited, there could also be a far simpler answer: they just wanted something different. Either way, it's speculative to add, and doesn't belong in any article at Wikipedia. Wikia, maybe, but not here. I hope you can understand why, because if you cannot, you are certain to keep running into resistance from me and from other editors. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb. I'm actually busy watching the series now, and I'm a fan of it, so I'll refer to the Kim Possible List of Episodes as my reliable source, or you can youtube the episodes if you need to watch them first. According to the Wikipedia-page, the very first episode (aka the Pilot) is 'Crush'. In that episode, as I have watched it, Kim & Ron clearly already have met Shego and Drakken and have known them for a while, but in the 5th Episode, they have no clue who both of them are. The only explanation for that is a chronological error. Whether it's via the writers or the air-dates, it doesn't matter, an error is still an error. I have given you permission to correct my grammar when necessary, but that doesn't mean that the content shouldn't be in the article. Now, I understand that the 'production code' listed with the Episodes actually follows the chronological order, but it should at least be mentioned in the article that the episode numbers don't, because it confuses people if the article isn't thorough enough. I'm not upset at anyone, I'm just trying to help. Nelatti (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nelatti Wikipedia is not a reliable source because it, like IMDb, Wikia, TVTropes, TV.com, etc., is user-generated. Moving along, it might be worth a note in one (but probably not both) of the episodes to mention that there is an inconsistency, but speculating why that inconsistency occurred or attempting to draw meaning from it, is not suitable for inclusion, because it constitutes original research. Even calling it a "chronological error" is questionable because it suggests that there was an oversight in the writing, as opposed to the episodes simply being aired out of sync with production. Episode 5 may have been written before Episode 1, but maybe Disney felt it was a better first episode and aired out of order. Who knows? Certainly not you or I. Total speculation. So I might support the addition of something like Note: In this episode Kim & Ron meet Shego and Drakken for the first time, despite being aware of them in episode 1, "Crush". but any statement beyond that would need to be supported by reliable published sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you just say that Wikipedia only accepts a reliable source? Because saying that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source, for another Wikipedia-article, is contradictory. Nelatti (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nelatti - It would be appreciated if you'd please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ and please indent using an appropriate number of colons. Yes, Wikipedia only wants reliable sources. No, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source and cannot be used as a reference at Wikipedia because it is generated by users. From WP:WPNOTRS: Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose. You may, of course, use references that you find in Wikipedia articles, provided they meet our guidelines on reliable sources. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomber I will, in the future, try my best to improve my grammar. I know that an established web-site (or newspaper, etc) will not allow any Wikipedia article to be used as a reliable source, but what still baffles me is that Wikipedia themselves don't allow it either? But anyway, let bygones be bygones. I have been using the proper references and links, though the only links that can be used, in the articles, are for related Wikipedia-pages. Nelatti (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Reply to your Message

You are correct as usual, my friend. It was very foolish of me to get into an edit war on The Lion Guard. I will try to do as you ask if something like that happens again. I still don't get why that IP hopper doesn't want Disney-ABC mentioned in the infobox even if it isn't syndicated nor why a source is needed. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, FilmandTVFan28. I know it's difficult, and I know you want what's right for the article. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of accolades received by 7 Khoon Maaf

Hi. Hope you're well. I note this merger discussion has been open for a month. Given how tetchy Bollywood article discussions can get, as a neutral, I was wondering if you're able to close it? Cowlibob (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cowlibob, meant to get to this yesterday, but got swamped.  Done Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

CNN articles

Hey Cyphoidbomb! The IP is at it again. Do you think we can put a semi-protection (indefinite?) on both pages (CNN Tonight, CNN Tonight with Don Lemon)? Not a move-protected because they redirect it. I'm thinking more along the lines of semi-protection for only auto-confirmed users and not IP. The IPs should have to go through the talk page and request an edit... thoughts? 🍀 Corkythehornetfan 🍀 21:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yay or nay? 🍀 Corkythehornetfan 🍀 06:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Corkythehornetfan, sorry just noticed your request. I'm not sure what the best approach here is. I've semied CNN Tonight with Don Lemon for 3 months on the basis that if they can't establish the article there, they will have nothing to redirect CNN Tonight to. Indefinite semiprotection seems a bit heavy for an opening move. Let's see how this goes. Also they have used accounts before like Soo9819, so you'll have to keep an eye out. It's an imperfect solution, but maybe it'll help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been keeping an eye out! Most of the articles they are editing are in my watchlist. 🍀 Corkythehornetfan 🍀 01:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: - If the IPs get a bit out of hand, it might be wise to seek out admins that are willing to do rangeblocks. I know that there is a category for this, although I don't have a link at present. I'm not so sharp on the technical stuff, so there are surely admins who might be able to quell this mess, since I don't think many IPs have been used so far to disrupt these articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Need a page deleted

Sorry for this drama, but I noticed that you're online. I've got a bit of an issue at Betty X (Artist). There's been a lot of drama surrounding this article, which I documented at Talk:Betty X (Artist) after I tagged the page for speedy deletion. In short, it's a repeatedly recreated page (usually under Betty X, which was protected). This new page is an attempt to get around the full protection of that article. However, my speedy deletion tag was reverted. I don't want to deal with this. Can you delete the page and possibly salt it? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate I'll take a look. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - Whoop. Looks like Yamaguchi got it. Might want to keep an eye out for other Betty X deviations like (singer) (entertainer) etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yup. This is a persistent one. Well, thanks for looking in. I think a film producer just discovered an article I wrote, so it looks like I'm due for more joy in my life. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Cool! Or not. Not sure how to read that. :) Apparently Betty has taken offense according to recent Twitter posts. I assume she's unaware of our notability guidelines and perhaps doesn't understand that nobody has bothered to properly establish her notability. I dunno. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think maybe my sense of humor might sometimes be drier than a desert. It's gotten to the point where even I can't always tell if I'm joking. Now you'll have to interpret whether that's a joke or not. I could use smileys, but, really, wouldn't that spoil the fun? I'm not really sure how to better explain our inclusion criteria to Betty X and her fans. My guess is that they do not wish to understand it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Remember I said that I think a possible COI editor may be editing an article I created? It's starting to get drama-heavy. He's insisting that positive reviews be highlighted as "rated fresh on Rotten Tomatoes" and that we use the RT rating as proof that it got "mixed reviews" – possibly to counteract several prominent negative reviews. He is also removing negative criticism from reviews that he insists are positive. The article is The Final Project. I'm worried this is going to turn into a redux of The Boy (2015 film). I don't care if he wants to load up the reception with positive reviews, but I object to highlighting them as "rated fresh on RT" and inventing some kind of RT consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure, but things seem to be simmering down a little. User has accused me of misrepresenting sources, fabricating quotations, and bias, but I think we're starting to move toward some kind of understanding and consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - Okay, cool. I was going to leave him an NPA warning, but I'll hold off until you need me again. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

In retrospect, I think part of the problem is my fault. I'm usually more calm and explanatory, but the past day or two has been a bit stressful for me. I'm trying to work with him, but it's difficult. Part of the problem is that a lot of the articles that I create don't get good reviews, and the positive aspects are difficult to highlight without breaking MOS:FILM or WP:RS. I'm trying to explain this stuff, but I'm apparently not doing such a great job of it. It's easier to stay calm and neutral when one hasn't created the article, I think. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - You're not alone. I got a bit pissy at the Betty X article, and Ritchie333 called me out at WP:AN to suggest I cool off a bit. (I invited the scrutiny by asking for extra eyes at the talk page...) It happens sometimes. We shouldn't vilify ourselves, but we should obviously figure out a way to get a bit cooler. Lately I've been going through my watchlist and removing things that aren't Indian cinema related. It's not that I have any interest in Indian cinema, but it's a microcosm that needs a lot of scrutiny because of heavy corruption, paid editing, sockpuppeteering, etc. It's extraordinarily tricky maintaining a balance between friendly editor and "bad cop". I don't know that I have a specific point here, so I guess I'll just politely end this comment so's not to raise questions about my mental fitness. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

All I can really do is point out WP:CGTW, especially #2. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, Hah, but a sad testament for all of us who are clearly cut from stronger cloth. Or coolness will prevail... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

IP hopper

Hi. That IP hopper from Maryland is back, this time as 108.56.169.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Sjones23 - Sheesh! Sadly, like so many we deal with, I suspect cognitive issues here. Blocked 6 months. Please let me know if you spot any others. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

stop harrasment

some one is adding maintenance template to structured articles, please dont message me while I am editing, I am here to improve articles, not to trouble any one, please dont trouble me, i request you Vakthruthva (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

explanation

From now on, I will explain clearly, you too please dont add maintenance templates to structured articles with good inline citations, you cant add maintenance templates to every article, if i did any mistake please undo my edits, i do not have any POV style, but kindly dont message me. Vakthruthva (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Pt.3F.
Message added 17:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop editing on things you don't know about

Reverting without knowledge is disruptive. Yes, wiki does use IMDB links in the case of working professionals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.142.155 (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You should take your own advice to avoid editing on things you don't know about. WP:RS/IMDB, WP:RS, WP:TVFAQ all exclude IMDb as a reference because it is user-contributed. There is no exemption for "working professionals". But, since you didn't bother to note specifically what your complaint is or where this matter took place, it's a moot point. Good luck with your misguided anger. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Wait a second, are you referring to this reversion from November 2015?! Are you serious? You're bringing this up four months later? And without any context? Gimme a break. You're wrong. Read the links above. Unbelievable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't live on wikipedia like you. I am the animator they are writing about. I'm not angry at all, you are. 24.24.142.155 (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

24.24.142.155 I'm not angry, I was incredulous that you're bringing this up without context four months later. And simultaneously telling me that I know nothing about Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines and then criticizing me for living here, is obviously contradictory, because clearly I would know something. Anyhow, moving to more constructive avenues, information about living people has to be impeccably sourced, because we want to avoid any potential for defamation or prank edits. Now while you're claiming that you are the animator, and I'm happy to accept that for the purposes of this discussion, anything that goes into articles has to be impeccably sourced. I'll say broadly I don't think Wikipedia as a matter of community practice would retroactively refer to someone who was originally credited with Name A, as Name B. So if you were credited as David Brewster, my first inclination would be refer to you by that name in the article, because that's how you were credited. That seems to be supported by WP:BIRTHNAME, which reads, "If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention." That said, if this were a gender identity matter, which your IMDb bio might suggest, then I'd be happy to float a question on your behalf at WikiProject LGBT to see what the community preference is. I think though that it might be better if you created an account (not required, though) and approached them yourself so that you get the info first-hand. I won't do anything unless you ask me to. I think though that no matter what, we're going to need a reliable reference of some sort that explains the name change, and stuff like blogs or Twitter accounts are typically sketchy because they are user-generated. Verified accounts might work. And again, there's still the matter of WP:BIRTHNAME Hope that helps. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Here we go.

I don't live on wikipedia so I am going to bring it up when I'm here. I brought it up when I saw it.

It was not criticism ,it was a statement of fact. You live here and I don't. I only come to correct.

"That said, if this were a gender identity matter, which your IMDb bio might suggest" You think ? It does , doesn't it.

"I'd be happy to float a question on your behalf at WikiProject LGBT " Oh please do that, I need another opinion on my legal name and gender change. Apparently the courts are not enough .

"I think though that no matter what, we're going to need a reliable reference of some sort that explains the name change"

Oh gosh that is so hard. Need a copy of the court documents, my license? .Website http://www.tinybun.com/

Email http://www.tinybun.com/bookleft.html

I doubt there are any websites that hold my personal drawings back as far as 2006 like this http://totald.blogspot.com/

Go do it. 24.24.142.155 (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

So have you done this yet ? 24.24.142.155 (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC) The other alternative is to remove me completely.24.24.142.155 (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I've asked WikiProject LGBT to assist, so you should probably follow up there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Great, where do I go to do that? 24.24.142.155 (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops, found it, thanks. 24.24.142.155 (talk)

point of view

Kindly stop your point of views and stop following me, just because you dislike an article, doesn't mean you could add silly maintenance templates on well structured articles, may I know about your agenda driven vandalism Vakthruthva (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Vakthruthva: That's a rather silly request considering that's part of an administrator's job. And even if he weren't an administrator, he could still apply maintenance tags to articles where appropriate. You really have no right to demand that he stops. Amaury (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Amaury - All true. Please also note my reply on his talk page. The maintenance tags were restored because the editor did not explain his rationale for removing them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Wishes

	Happy Maha Shivaratri!
	Wishing you, your family, and your dear ones a very happy Maha Shivaratri! Keep yourself very happy and joyful, away from sorrows and worries in this moment, something which Nataraja teaches! PS: I don't know whether you are aware of this festival or not, but i'm sure you will be happy with this gesture of WikiLove. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Pavanjandhyala, I'm not aware of this festival, but I always appreciate well-wishes, thank you. Happy holiday to you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hai, I arranged cast as per credits in the film.