Jump to content

User talk:Cyphoidbomb

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joeblow (talk | contribs) at 01:28, 14 June 2015 (→‎trivial interest: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



A cookie for you

174.91.69.244 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Sky Plc

bskyb does not exist anymore the company has changed name to sky plc no need to change my update

Destructive Destroyer

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

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.

Email Message

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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)

Apologies

sorry my its my mistake, i don't do again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.178.119 (talk • contribs)

sorry its totly my mistake i can't do it again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samirjha123456789 (talk • contribs)

Re: Frustration

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

User:Wishing Lucky Lucke

They're a sockpuppet of User:6Flamingo, and exhibit exactly the same behaviour as both that user, and blocked socks such as User:ShwingGumme (note the similar manipulation of the naming as well). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lukeno94: I had a pretty strong guess that they were a sock of someone. I placed the warning on the page merely as a formality. :) Thanks for the note though, as I didn't know who they were. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd filed an AIV report on them already at that point, although I fear that I may have to go through the SPI process for no good reason. It's entirely possible that 6Flamingo is, in itself, a User:Maelbros sock; the behaviour matches. 6Flamingo isn't blocked at the moment, so it's not block evasion in that sense, but it's still pretty clear sockpuppetry IMO. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

School week

Your recent action was improper because the PROD template says quite emphatically, "If this template is removed, do not replace it." Your suggestion that I should revert you to discuss the matter is also quite improper per WP:REVTALK. If you want the matter to be discussed then you should please start a discussion yourself. Andrew D. (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: I have self-reverted, but your suggestion that it is my responsibility to get to the bottom of a PROD is not sound, as the first step of WP:CONTESTED instructs you to explain the removal, and even general editing principles emphasize the importance of communication. So, maybe a lesson learned for us both. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons as a related series

Hi, I started a discussion section on the Futurama talk page if you'd like to contribute. Let me know what your thoughts are. I recognize that this is a case that is more ambiguous than the TV box guidelines indicate, but I feel that there is still a compelling argument for the two to be listed as related beyond single cross-over episodes or shows related merely by the same creator. I welcome your input!Luminum (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Sorry bout that, wasn't intending to revert you, just someone else. Rusted AutoParts 15:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts: Ah! Well then that was quickly resolved. :) Thanks, Rusted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Quackers-response

Nothing personal with your comment about Stone Quackers. Just trying to improve the comment of the Gothball spinoff that John O'Hurley started in by expanding it as the way you described it. I had no idea that you had an issue with it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Introduction of P.K.

Hello, I don't understand why you deleted my sentence about "wide critical acclaim." It is very common across movie articles on Wikipedia to indicate critical success in the film's introduction, and this especially holds because it is factually true as well that the film received critical acclaim, so I do not understand why you claim that we "aren't critical response aggregators." Can certainly provide references if you want evidence. I deleted a blurb about the film being in the IMDb top 250 because it is not true anymore... so I indicated the critical success this way. 72.231.8.79 (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see that you've answered your issues with this under Mad Max. 72.231.8.79 (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @72.231.8.79:, hi there, thanks for the note. Generally speaking, WikiProject Film tends to prefer to rely on the determinations made by critical response aggregators, like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. These determinations are rarely absolutes, as often the two aggregators don't see eye-to-eye on what the critics' responses mean. Metacritic might consider one film's critical response as average, while Rotten Tomatoes might consider it generally positive. As individuals, it is not our duty to make these determinations, particularly when they could be subject to our own points of view. If I don't like a film, I might only notice the bad reviews and make a generalized statement about the film being received generally poorly, which constitutes a confirmation bias. So far the startup aggregators for Bollywood films, Cinechicken and Sahi Nahi have not yet dazzled members of Indian cinema task force. In the case of PK, while many review were positive, there were some that were lukewarm and I'm sure there are reviews that were poor. Of the reviews presented in the article some were good, some were sort of neutral. More important than summarizing the general critical response, is to present a balanced coverage of the criticism, since we're not here to sell the movie. Hope that helps, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re your updated comment, as you can see at Mad Max, the summaries can be contentious, which is why (in my opinion) they are better left avoided. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A stupid bomb for you!

Endless Bomb
Cyphoidbomb, this stupid bomb I got from the bomb store. You should give it a try. Dan9122 (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Google Day!

Google Day
Happy Google Day! This is the best day ever, and I want you to suprise. Dan9122 (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Café

Hi Cyphoid! Judging by your edits, would you happen to know anything about a mid-90s CBBC series called Monster Café? Some episodes can be found on YouTube. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pickuptha'Musket, sorry, no, I don't know anything about that subject, but if I can help in any way, please let me know. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to source?

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. I'm BackyardigansKaibigan, the leading contributor from the Backyardigans Wiki.

I noticed my edit was revised because it wasn't sourced. Can you tell my how I source my edit? I chatted with the Backyardigans' director, and we discussed the ages of the characters.

BackyardigansKaibigan (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BackyardigansKaibigan See Referencing for Beginners, but before you do that, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources and Wikipedia's policy on original research. Saying that your friend, the director, told you so is not going to cut it as a reference. We require reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, i.e. newspapers, magazines, web news sites, and other sources with clear editorial oversight. Even posting a query on Twitter and getting a response is considered original research and will be removed. Age-cruft is problematic in Children's TV articles on Wikipedia, and I'd say that unless it's documented in the series or on the production website, it's probably not worth including. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I'm just letting you know, I'm sorry. And I also apologize. FrozenFan2 (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Flamingo

Dear Cyphy, you made a mistake, YTV contacted me that "it premiered in 2006 not 2005". I know it because they told me that the show would have been under development in 2005.

P.S. I'm new to Wikipedia. I don't know about what to do with this site. Also, make a Quote of the Day in your front page. 108.48.98.241 (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

108.48.98.241 Hi, thanks for the note. I didn't make a mistake, I asked for a reference. Unsourced content isn't improved with the addition of more unsourced content. So while the dates in the article might be incorrect, how can anyone verify? If you have a published reference that verifies the original Canadian air date, post the link here or on the article's talk page and I'll change the information and add the reference. An email will not suffice, however, for complicated Wikipedia reasons. (WP:OR, WP:RS). Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I found a reference that stated the series began February 17, 2006. Where did you get October 2 from? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-ISIS accounts

Hi, C-Bomb. I'm feeling a bit worried that Wikipedia may have some users or even ip addresses that support ISIS with pro-ISIS pictures, comments and edits. I don't want this site to be a hotspot of terrorist activites. What can I do if I saw some edits, comments and pictures that glorifies ISIS? 174.113.217.132 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking. That is a serious assertion. Can you provide solid evidence for this? Diffs would be good. Irondome (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
174.113.217.132 If this is a recurring issue, you should go to WP:ANI and leave your comments along with comprehensive "diffs". Diffs are what we use to compare the "differences" from a previous version of an article or page, to the edits in question. For instance, in these 5 edits you left your query above on my talk page. If that's too complicated provide links to the articles in question along with information about when the problem occurred. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

30 May 2015

Hello, I'm Apettyfer I noticed that you made a change to Liza Soberano, Article, but you didn't provide a source in her Television and film section. Thank You! Apettyfer (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Apettyfer: Hi, I don't understand what your complaint is. I removed unsourced content and puffery that wasn't suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. No sources are required for the removal of problematic content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced removal response

For the recent thing that you have contacted me about revolving around Hulk and the Agents of S.M.A.S.H., the info about Michael Dorn voicing Supreme Intelligence and Patrick Seitz voicing Ghost Rider left by this anonymous contributor was premature. This contributor has been told by me to have an official news source for some of his contributions. Some of the ones he has submitted had been inaccurate like how he claimed that Travis Willingham would voice Hercules when he turned out to be voiced by Townsend Coleman. If you don't believe me, go to that person's link because he has not responded to a message I left for that anonymous contributor who has reverted my messages. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rtkat3 All the more reason for you to explain clearly in your edit summary, and on the talk page, if necessary, why you are removing sourced content. Having a reason doesn't do anybody else any good if you don't explain what your reason is. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers Location

PR was filmed at California, in Los Angeles and Santa Clarita in studies of MMPR Productions until 2002. Even in the credits of those series (MMPR- Time Force) is accredited. I have spoken with members of that production and they confirmed. There is a video uploaded to Youtube by the same members which shows the behind the scenes and locations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1p53R961vs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederic1995 (talk • contribs)

@Frederic1995: The place for this information would be in the article in the form of a reference. See Referencing for Beginners if you're not sure how to add references. However, since the YouTube video you liked to could likely present a copyright violation, you would not be able to link to that. As for you speaking with members of the production, that information is of no use to Wikipedia, as it constitutes original research. If you were a journalist, however, and you'd published the details of this discussion in a reliable forum like a news website, then it would be fine to include. Otherwise, you need to find reliably published material. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Really?

I Just saw your edits on DDD and let me tell you it's not neutral point of view but, I dont like it. By what means the film received negative/mixed reception? Tell e=me a single article were mixed reviews are follwed by better ones? Let's analyze. The film received positive reception overall.

Extended content
  • IANS- Positive
  • Subhash K. Jha - Positive
  • Anupama Chopra - Positive
  • Yahoo! - Positive
  • Rediff (Sukanya Verma)- Positive
  • Rediff (Raja Sen) - Positive
  • Filmfare - Positive
  • Mid Day - Positive
  • Bhawana Somaaya - Positive
  • Sify (Sonia Chopra) - Positive
  • Deccan Chronicle - Positive
  • Komal Nahta - Positive
  • Times of India - Positive
  • Gulf News - Positive
  • Rajeev Masand - Positive
  • Mumbai Mirror - Positive
  • Firstpost - Positive
  • India Tv - Positive
  • Zee News - Positive
  • Dainik Jagran - positive
  • Dainik Bhaskar - positive
  • Koimoi - positive
  • Bollywood Hungama - positive
  • Mayank Shekhar - Positive
  • Emirates 24*7 - Positive
  • Outlook (Namrata Joshi) - Positive
  • Pratim D. Gupta - Positive
  • India Wire - Positive
  • The Indian Express - Mixed
  • India Today - Mixed
  • NDTV - Mixed
  • DNA - Mixed
  • Hindustan Times - Mixed
  • Reuters - Mixed
  • Mint - Mixed
Most of the critics have given a positive reviews and the ntable critics are large in number. So please correct your knowledge and be neutral. I hope it helps you.—Prashant 06:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prashant, when you start running a critical response aggregator that is accepted by the Wikipedia community, then maybe your bullet pointed list will have some meaning. Until then, it is considered original research. Your interpretation of good, bad, mixed is not relevant to this encyclopedic project. What is relevant is presenting a balanced perspective of all reliable critical response without cherry picking reviews because it makes the film sound better. WP:NPOV is Wikipedia policy, not a suggestion, and if the goal is to hide authentic criticism by burying it under a wall of praise, that is not neutrality. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are trying to say but, you did not understood what I meant. You have given more weightage to the mixed review than positive. Is it neutral? I count more mixed reviews than I count the positive. Plus, all the mixed reviews are added to it, n eglecting positive ones. If a film recieves 75% positive and rest mixed then, the article should be written with the same proportion. In this case I see the opposite.—Prashant 07:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By counting good and bad reviews yourself, you are making a value judgment about which way the critical response is swaying. That is WP:OR. I think this discussion is better suited for the article's talk page where there are already similar discussions up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel

Yeah, regarding your recent edit to the article... the page has been semi'd since November 2013. This shows up every time I click "edit":

19:38, 1 November 2013 Mark Arsten (talk | contribs) protected List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel‎ ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite)‎[move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) (Persistent vandalism) (hist)

I hope you'll understand. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 20:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Electricburst1996: Gah! I'm clearly wrong about that. Thanks for the note. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VeggieTales

Hello, you keep reverting my edits on VeggieTales when you claim it needs "verifiably sources". Specifically, you revert my edit at the part where it says "The program was offered in the direct-to-video market, with the first 30-minute program, Where's God When I'm S-Scared?, released in July 1993." I keep changing July 1993 to December of 1993 because

1. If you read Phil Vischer's book "Me, Myself and Bob", it specifically states they finished the first video a few days before Christmas in December of 1993.

2. The top of the article states "The characters in VeggieTales were originally created by Phil Vischer. He and Mike Nawrocki began producing the films (Nawrocki later took over the entire project when the rights were bought by Classic Media), and they did many of the voices. Originally released in direct-to-video format, the series debuted on December 21, 1993." This is a contradiction I was simply correcting.

Also, the production company dates are factually incorrect as well. Lyrick Studios was not involved from the beginning (1993), they did not begin distributing the videos until 1998. HIT Entertainment bought Lyrick in 2001 and only distributed the videos until the end of the year, when Big Idea announced they'd switch. Finally, Classic Media did not buy the company until late 2003, when they fell into bankruptcy.

I do not understand why you keep reverting these edits when plenty of other articles do not cite dates when talking about production companies. I will not change it back to the way it should be until you respond to this, but I would appreciate it if you would stop reverting the edits simply because they are not cited. If you think the current dates are correct, where are the sources? NBA2030 (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NBA2030 Hi there, thanks for the note. Firstly, the reversions are not personal. I can tell you're doing what you think is right. That said, the changes need to be sourced because unsourced data offers no guarantee of accuracy, even if it is correct. "If you read Phil Vischer's book" doesn't cut it as a reference because nobody reading the article could be expected to look at this discussion and learn, "Ah, that's where the information is coming from." References must be presented as inline citations so readers know exactly where the content is coming from. Online references are even better, since they can be more quickly verified than books. The VeggieTales articles are heavily vandalized, which makes sourcing an absolute must, and a few of us regular editors are a little touchy about that. There is a built in tool in the light blue band of your edit window that makes citing very easy. Click "Templates" and select "Cite book" if you wish to cite Vischer's book, otherwise, use Cite web. You might also consider looking at Referencing for Beginners. Hope that helps, and if you have any other questions, feel free to drop me a line. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PPG REboot anxiety

Overnight, I saw the new images of the 2016 Powerpuff Girls reboot and read about the new voice actors. Months ago, I signed a petition by a man named Matthew Coleman on Change.org to bring the Powerpuff Girls' original voices back and at the time it was progressing, it was shared by a former Cartoon Network representative. However although it made progress it didn't get through- but I don't know for sure! Anyway while the new pictures depict the new versions of Blossom Bubbles and Buttercup looking excatly like their original counterparts, but with two mediocre touches, I'm scared that once the new Powerpuff Girls series airs sometime next year it'll be just I'm imagining- Cartoon Network is gonna stop caring about the original Powerpuff Girls series that aired from 1998 to 2005, they and everyone else will take the original for granted, and pretend that it doesn't exist anymore- erase the original PPG series from Cartoon Network's history, as well as the original PPG website on cartoonnetwork.com because of the reboot. Remember the original 2003 Teen Titans series? Cartoon Network took that for granted after Teen Titans Go! premiered at they replaced it with Teen Titans Go!- even its website got replaced on cartoonnetwork.com! That's exactly what's gonna happen to the original Powerpuff Girls series once the new series comes next year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboogie604 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboogie604 (talk • contribs)

NO TITLE

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

It's up to you. I'm tired. Bye.

IreneTandry (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

north attleboro.

there was a person of interest posted for north attleboro massachusetts. this person is not from North Attleboro, and if it is going to be placed there, there should clarity. Truth is constructive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeblow (talk • contribs) 03:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeblow: No idea what you're talking about. This edit, where you add inappropriate commentary about how "deplorable" the school system is, is inappropriate for inclusion. Feel free to pen your opinions in blogs, but they don't belong at Wikipedia where we strive to maintain a neutral point of view. As for your contribution here, I have reverted that, because Hernandez's upcoming legal troubles are of trivial interest in an article about Attleborough, Massachusetts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama Presents: The Ridonculous Race‎

I don't agree with this source. It's not a verified Twitter account. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can dig that. I've opened a discussion on the talk page. The fact that the user wants to stress that the production company is "doing everything they can to make sure it does not happen again" is also bumping me as trivial fluff. And for all we know, the company leaked the episode as a marketing ploy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, it seems we're on the same page. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Backyardigans vandal

I noticed a vandal amongst the Backyardigans' page. She is a relentless vandal. She vandalizes the sole Backyardigans Wiki as well. Please block her. It makes me sad to see her being rude to the series.

2601:4:1D82:B600:129A:DDFF:FE65:B884 (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided enough information for anybody to take action on this. Who is the user? What edits were she responsible for? Cyphoidbomb (talk)

Happysaddy

Hi I'm Happysaddy as i want you to know that i undo your work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happysaddy (talk • contribs) 15:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happysaddy Your reversion was illegitimate. You need to provide references for that content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You Been Blocked From Editing Wikipedia

You Been Blocked From Editing Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happysaddy (talk • contribs) 15:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, kid. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Maelbros

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

trivial interest

if the murderer is of such trivial interest why is he listed there at all? That's my point, using your words

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyphoidbomb&oldid=666837658"