User talk:Cyphoidbomb/Archive 6

Hey, Cyphoidbomb. I need your help.
I think you know me from the issue about the Jimmy Two-Shoes article. I'm very glad writing to you again. The problem is I'm editing this article according to data I've gathered and I've cited through the article, and this user is disrupting my edits, which is a fault on the first Wikipedia rule: "Anyone can edit". Now, I understand that I'm being silly about this, but I have sources which can prove my point on this edit, being reverted    repetitively. I'm not basing the articles with my facts. I've made a research on different forums and I've been looking for webs which had the information I needed, but this user is persistent on this and doesn't want the changes to be added. For the record, this is the same user that time ago tried to manipulate the Main article of the channel from being US localized to International, something many users, including administrators, rejected. Please, help me. He has a long time being here, and I'm just one year and still learning, but I'm not rude with everybody here. Hope you understand. Sincerely. -Bankster1 (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Edit: Also, we both violated the 3RR rule, but I rejected to revert his edition due to position he may do to prove him right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bankster1 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi I'm happy to take a look, but can you please provide a clearer explanation of what the specific dispute is? By looking at that article's talk page I see some older stuff about not using the German Wikipedia as a reference, which makes sense to me. We can't use any Wiki, be it Wikipedia, or Wikia, nor can we use any user-contributed site as a reference. This tends to include other sites like TVTropes, TV.com, and even IMDb. Also, when you provide diffs, can you please include the link from the "prev" button, or, if you select a range of changes, use the link at the top of the resulting page, (example here) not a link from the page at the time it was edited? (I know this might be confusing, but a "diff" is supposed to show what specifically was changed or is "diff"erent. For example, one link you provided above was this, but what is better is this version which shows me a summary of what exactly has been changed between the two edits. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. No problem. The dispute is about the actual channels of Disney XD, which I've visited pages and make a research (which Spshu states that "falls into the non-original research Wikipedia's policy") and I listed the Disney XD channels by countries, divided in SD-HD feeds and their launch, in what countries it airs apart from the supposed country, and the management those channels receive. Now, I've visited forums and different pages and I've made it clear these was the actual division of the channels. In this edit, which was the first I'd made, I've listed the channels in a disorganized manner that some users took their time to help me out doing the correct coding of the tab, something I really appreciate, but as you can see, there are some issues there, like Disney XD South Africa. This channel is the same as Disney XD Turkey, which airs on the Balkans and the Middle East, only with an English track. This channel is called Disney XD EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa), which I listed in that edition and included DXD ZA here with some minor annotations about the airing of it on the Balkans. As far as I'm concerned, this feed replaced Jetix EMEA, which was on the air in Turkey and the Middle East, but it didn't reach Africa, so that's why I kept the actual launch of the channel in ZA. Romania can catch the channel on Serbian DigiTV, same as Bulgaria (stated also in the latter edition). Also, in the first and latter edition, I've included the division of DXD Scandinavia by audiotracks and not by channels, since I really don't know if a DXD NU HD channel exists and, if so, I can't find the sources about when it was launched. So, I divided into 6 according to a Viasat webpage I forgot to include as a reference: Danish (for Denmark and Iceland), Swedish (for Sweden and Finland), Norwegian (for Norway), Finnish (for Finland and Estonia. Continuity was in English), English (pan language, for Scandinavia and Baltics) and Russian (only for Baltics. Continuity wasn't translated. Included in Swedish Viasat carrier.). This edition caused me a lot of problems, since Spshu stated that there was a proper, IPTV channel of a Russian DXD airing in Lithuania (which could be DXD Scandi with Russian audio). Since Jetix Russia was replaced by Kanal Disney on 10 August 2010, this can be a matter, since there's no even another Disney channel there (like DXD or D. Junior, last one is carried as a block on Kanal Disney). So, there's no logic on the IPTV channel. He shields himself providing a MAVISE source, which is the same website that listed Kanal Disney replacing Jetix Russia 5 months earlier than recorded and listed on YouTube and Wikipedia, respectively. It doesn't make any sense. Another thing you can find in this edition, which was the last one that I've added information until an admin came out and protected the page, is that I've put launch dates of subchannels according to different sources (one of them was the proper Wikipedia in other languages, but some had their own references). For example: according to Guida Sky Italia, the HD DXD IT channel was launched on 9 June 2012, and it was recorded by a YouTube user called "kingoftvsat", known for recording continuities. I also listed the US DXD West channel but without including the date, because I have no information of this. However, I've included a satellite carrier (lyngsat) which states that feed, indeed, exists, and it's even carried by DirecTV. Another listing was the Latin American channel, which I know better because I'm from Latin America and I live there. This channel is divided in subfeeds, all of them premiered on 3 July 2009, according to ANMTVLA (prestigious webpage about everything that involves TV on Latin America and Brazil), and it was recorded on YouTube. Was divided in Mexico feed (aired also in the US, but I didn't put that because it would be odd), North Atlantic (Colombia, Venezuela, Central America and Caribbean), Brazil feed, South feed (Argentina, PY and UY), and Pacific (feed which I receive on my TV provider, airing over Peru, Chile, Bolivia and Ecuador. Headquarters in Chile). The last one was split from the South feed on 2010, when DXD was already airing. It's characteristics are that it included the main DXD announcer, that differs in voice from the Argentinian one, and we had the Chilean time (which was kind of bad because I'm Peruvian and the difference between Chile and Peru on matter of time is from 1-2 hours depending on the month of the year). Well, reducing this to a little summary, Spshu and I had a edit war over these statements until user:CambridgeBayWeather arrived and protected the page for the first user, as he requested him to do that. Now, he's accusing me from being a vandal, something I can't tolerate at any matter because my first intention here was to contribute in both English and Spanish Wikis. In the last one, we used to base our articles from the English main wiki, so that's why I've committed the mistake to do it in the vice versa manner here with sources from other Wikipedias. I'm writing to you because I want things to be resolved. I compromise to search the right sources for exact sections of the article as far as Spshu doesn't erase all the contribution I've made in hours. It was a great edit and I have friends on forums that gave me some sources in which I've based the article, but now I have to look for them again. I don't want this article to be protected forever and I don't want to be "in war" with that user, which seems to intimidate a little. Thanks for your help, Cyphoidbomb.

-Bankster1 (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

If you've got a second...
Could you please add Alex Russo to your watchlist? An unresponsive editor keeps unnecessarily adding colour to the infobox. He's veen reverted at other articles but for some reason keeps targeting this one with some poor contrast colours and a polite request hasn't helped. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's fairly trivial but..... -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you ever get tired of the boring world of television editing, let me sell you on the exciting cutthroat world of Bollywood cinema! I don't know how I got dragged into it exactly—I feel like it started when I answered an edit request—but everbody's corrupt, editors either try to candy coat a film, or drag it through effluent, there's plagiarism, POV issues, garbage websites—it's got all the ups and downs!  Lots of opportunities!  Plus, not a whole lot is happening at the Indian cinema task force discussionwise...it's a brand new editing frontier! (Loading revolver...) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It couldn't be worse than the world of telenovelas of "The Real Housewives of ". -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Damn. Maybe you're right... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender Editing
I am in the process of rewriting the page, and I currently plan not to "go live" until I have your feedback unless you take too long to respond. How would you suggest that I put the content into a less fan-oriented way while having the same info in it? --Super3588 (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Award 4 U
awarded to Cyphiodbomb for being a member of the 25,000 Edit Club Vjmlhds (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Woo woo! Oh I'm way beyond 25k, baby!  :)  Appreciate the acknowledgment, Vjmlhds (boy, that's hard to type...)  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry...there's a 50K Star for when the time comes. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (Putting bullet in revolver and spinning the cylinder...) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Socking?
So I'm starting to suspect some widespread socking and long term abuse on cartoon articles... there's just too many folks trying to change genres. Just seems too common to be a coincidence. Curious what you thought. Pinging as well since they also deal with these edits. Am I just being paranoid?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Ev, I haven't experienced much recurring genre vandalism, come to think of it. I've seen changes, but they don't seem as rampant as the other infobox vandalism (channels/network, companies, countries). This one guy seems to be an anomaly, but maybe I need to open my eyes more! :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay! I'll try to look for patterns... might just be my imagination.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Ev, I don't know if the user deserved that most recent warning at Codename. They did attempt to provide sources, although the sources were not sufficient. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right. That template deserved a trouting.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm too busy to trout. Please trout yourself via the honor system. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW: I've opened this discussion at WikiProject Television. I need some other input just to make sure I'm not being overly resistant to the changes the user made at Uncle Grandpa. I don't mind being wrong, but I still need the input. Thankx, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Self trouted. Will comment on TV. Cheers!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Helping move house
It's Australian (in case you were curious). --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah! Appreciate the note! Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It sounded wrong to me when I lived there. :) --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Qubo
Thank you for putting a block on 173.50.64.195. We had lots of vandalism on List of programs broadcast by Qubo. This person undone the edits that I have corrected earlier today. I spent 20 minutes correcting and removing false information s/he did. Right now, it is originally back the way s/he put it as if this person thinks the information s/he found was true. We do not where or how s/he got the information. We definitely sure it is false. Unfortunately, I cannot revert it due to the person who re-corrected the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbears22 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I didn't block anybody; I'm not an admin. Also 173.50.64.195 isn't blocked. Good luck, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying back. 173.50.64.195 has been driving me nuts and probably s/he is putting false information on the page. Therefore, I requested a page protection for the List of programs broadcast by Qubo page for vandalism and putting future tv shows in which it has not happened yet. I just found out that Ged UK has already requested to semi-protect the programming page. Cbears22 (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dcbanners
What a shame. I looked at the editing times/days of the Finealt socks and there is no overlap with edits by Dcbanners. At least not for the past 5 weeks. SMH.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So weird. No idea what to think. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Same here; didn't even think when I made up the SPI that this would even occur since I intended it to be report-only. I didn't even sense any overlap, though their 3RR blocks probably portended something.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

"List of TV shows" articles
Hey Cyphoidbomb. As you know, I'm a frequent editor of the article List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network. My question is: what will it take to get the article up to GA status, and what do you think is the "ideal" list of TV shows article? Should it be simplified to look like List of programs broadcast by CBS? Should the tables with distributors, premiere/end dates, notes, refs, etc. go and be replaced with the old list format?--Phil A. Fry (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm interested
Where do you come from?

Malmsimp (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Courage the Cowardly Dog
You reverted my edit on the page Courage the Cowardly Dog regarding Nowhere. Have you seen the intro? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtMLRQtCblw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepspace9odo (talk • contribs) 04:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the note. I took a look at the intro; thanks for linking to it. Still not sure the content you added belongs in the article. Content should ideally not be presented from an in-universe perspective, and I feel that your parenthetical "in the middle of Nowhere" is an in-universe gag that doesn't materially improve the casual reader's understanding of the series. Also, it interrupts the normal City, State pairing that you'd expect to see in an article when discussing where the series takes place, which tends to suggest they're in the middle of nowhere. Lastly, parentheticals are used far too often as a way to cram information into sentences, rather than figuring out a way to deliver the content so that it paints a clear picture to the casual reader. I don't mean that as a dig on you, I'm only expressing that this is something I see often in Kids' TV articles, and it's not always the right way to go. If content is important, it should be able to stand on its own. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Haha. >:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepspace9odo (talk • contribs) 07:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Very slightly related to the Qewr4231 situation up above. If someone just keeps up, keeps up, keeps up with posting in-universe perspectives in order to advance some weird cause, but we request admin intervention because the in-universe perspective violates a core policy (e.g. WP:V or WP:RS), we'll rightly be seen as wrong, and admins aren't as likely to address the core issue of the guy trying to advance an agenda or the fact that the guy's persistently adding unencyclopedic content.  Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI
I had to report you to ANI for harassment. The sources I used on the Kip Mckean page are reliable sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Cyphoidbomb_keeps_harassing_my_edits_and_reporting_me._He_is_using_reporting_as_a_weapon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qewr4231 (talk • contribs)
 * Predictably, your link doesn't work. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * [Long response; I'm sorry.] I won't respond elsewhere, because you asked me not to, but I don't see why you're concerned that it will come across as forum shopping.  This is a situation when Mom spanked your little brother for doing something and then he went back to doing it, while forum shopping is asking Dad for something when Mom already said no.  It's routine for us to re-sanction recidivism, and it's fine for the first admin to respond a second time.  But to answer your question: I'm not sure how to advise you.  You've drawn attention to things that aren't big problems, and an admin who's not familiar with the user's prior behavior might not realise that he's basically doing all he can to cast McKean in a bad light — they're symptoms of his problematic editing, not examples.  There's nothing wrong per se with including the guy's published address or tax bill: it's inappropriate for our articles because it's not encyclopedic, but since you've incorrectly argued that he's majorly violating policy, people are content to notice that you're wrong there, and they mistakenly think that you're also incorrect in your other assertions.  That's probably the biggest reason that you've gotten so little comment: people don't see reason to jump on his case, because they see that you're wrong, but you're not wrong to the point that people think they ought to object to you.  In the past, we've had pretty much the same situation with John D. Haynes House, where an editor claimed to be the owner of the property and claimed that we were violating his privacy by posting the house's address (i.e. his home address) in our article about the house.  It was uncomfortable, but we ended up mentioning (in a talk page discussion, not in the article) the owner's city of residence, because it was easily and quickly available from public records, because it proved that he lived hundreds of miles away, and thus it proved that we weren't publishing his home address in the article.  Not a BLP violation, and not a problem in talk space, and in the same way, mentioning McKean's home address and tax bill isn't per se a policy violation: just a horrid way of writing an encyclopedia, and a part of how he's more subtly attempting to write a non-neutral article.  So...finally I'm willing to engage the guy directly, to explain why he's wrong, to provide a warning of "stop this now, or you'll be blocked indefinitely" (after all, you've demonstrated that he's been doing this for years, and he's kept going despite warnings and blocking), and to block him if he doesn't stop.   Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I found a little more I'd like to say. WP:BLPPRIMARY talks about how we shouldn't use this kind of sourcing to provide home addresses etc., and while that's true, it's like the next subsection on self-published sources.  There's nothing necessarily wrong about using a reliable source, e.g. a public records office or court reporter, as a basis for "John Doe lives at 1234 56th Street, New York City", just as there's nothing necessarily wrong with using John Smith's blog as a basis for "Joe Bloggs grew up in Battersea but moved to Rochester at age eight".  We prohibit them because they're not the kind of sources that are used for encyclopedias, and if an editor persists in using them, the problem is that he's being contumate or simply incompetent.  Nyttend (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Responding to your new message at my talk. I agree that your rationale was problematic — not bad or wrong, but simply not effective. You'd probably have gotten a better response if you'd concentrated on how he's doing all this to attack McKean and his church, because you have a rock-solid case: he even inadvertently confirmed it with his comment at 10:28 ("Ministers should not become rich...").  No questions about his agenda, so if you'd focused on that, you would have probably gotten better responses.  Should I go ahead and give him a final warning?  If I do that, and if you later see him doing it again, let me know, and I'll give him an indefinite block if I think it warranted.  Nyttend (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and I've left such a warning. I'm sorry if I made myself come across as harsh; my intent was to say "you did the right thing in a way that won't get results", without making it sound as if I objected to your actions, but it was hard to walk that fine line and I'm sorry if I made you think that I was objecting.  Let me know if you see him doing anything more of this sort.  Nyttend (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Ha ha! A nice award. Thank you, my friend. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

List of Jessie episodes
A "friend" of yours appears to have moved to List of Jessie episodes. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, when he does something wrong, he's my friend... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Clarence episodes. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in loss of editing privileges. ''Diff: Your edits here appear look an awful lot like intentional disruption. The content you added is not found in the sources you attributed.'' Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I checked the source used and can see the info. The page moves, though can be moved back by clicking on All. The information, I note, is now in the article. It's worth double checking before assuming vandalism.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi SilkTork, I appreciate your note though it almost sounds like you're assuming bad faith on my part. Moving past that, you are referring to a warning I issued almost two weeks ago. I know I checked the source, and I know I didn't see the content. Maybe it was under All, maybe it wasn't. I don't recall for sure and there's no way to check for sure. But here's what I do know:
 * None of the people who submitted this content and who were reverted ever communicated anything about a mistake, be it on my talk page, the article's talk page, or even in an edit summary.
 * When the content was submitted by an IP editor who used a different source I checked the source and didn't see the episodes.
 * This guy, who submitted the same episode titles, plus rating numbers for shows that hadn't aired yet, is a straight-up vandal.
 * Geraldo Perez didn't see the episode titles in the Zap reference either, so at least I'm in good company.
 * Some of the other editors who added the content are notoriously silent.
 * All of these factors, plus years of experience suppressing vandalism suggested the content was not genuine.
 * That said, inspired by your note, it seems that a relatively easy way to avoid confusion is to remove "upcoming" from the URL, which I did in this edit. Regards Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you reflecting on the incident, giving Saginaw-hitchhiker an apology, and fixing the url. Well done for that. I looked into this incident because it's highly unusual for a user who has 30 Good Articles under their belt to indulge in vandalism. Regards  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Second vandal edit from 107.1.219.46
Just noting, in case you're keeping track, that 107.1.219.46 just added a stealthy vandalism to the YGG! Eps list. RossO (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed until you pointed it out. I've seen the addition of "Jeff Sutphen" in other vandalism before, but it's impossible for me to remember where. I feel like it may have been a year ago or so. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Craig Walendziak
Cyphoidbomb. I did not create that article. I was excited to see something written about me. I added the picture. I'm not a professional 'wikieditior'... I didn't log in all the time. Wgolf had the band pages deleted, then added the article for deletion on Craig Walendziak after I tried to TALK with him on his talk page. It just makes me sick to my stomach. That article is more factual then 75% of the stuff on here... but I have to defend it because Wgolf is CAMPAIGNING for his friends to get it deleted.

I'm new here... not malicious.

C Craig mack378 (talk)
 * It doesn't really matter whether or not you personally crafted the article about yourself--there are people who edit Wikipedia for pay, trade, because they're friends of the subject, etc. And it's certainly possible that the article creator is a complete stranger to you. It doesn't matter. What does matter, is that Wikipedia CheckUsers were able to directly link your account to the Dilbert Grapes account and to FranklinLeonard. There is additionally very strong behavioral evidence that these accounts are linked, just as there is strong behavioral evidence that the IPs are linked. If I were you, I'd probably just cop to it and call it a day, since it's the more dignified thing to do than pretending we're all nuts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Whoever created the article was NOT me. I'm not calling anyone nuts. I didn't pay/solicit anyone to edit the article. Dilbert came out and said he was a bass player of one of my other bands in 1998. I'm not pretending anything? What do you want me to do? Delete the picture? I'm really just asking... not trying to be confrontational. I'm not recruiting friends to defend me... which I could? But I feel personally attacked here.

Thanks.

C

Re: Sloppy editing
Is my editing really that sloppy? :'-( Norozco1 (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * From just a quick review of the previous 10 or so edits just before this one, I would agree with Cyph. It appears that you may have a tendency to not use the "Show preview" button before hitting the "Save page" button. This would show you if your edit will turn out as you intended with the exception of one like this where it was hidden text and you inserted a template into the middle of a word. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, i just didn't realize that i haven't been using it, but now i do, so things are going to be different from now on, okay! :-) Norozco1 (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wonderful, good luck to you in future editing. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Same to you dude! :-) Norozco1 (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

List of Bollywood films of 2015
No issues with your reverts. I did a quick check though and Calendar Girls has a release date of August 7, 2015 so I moved it there. The other movie being removed is more complicated. Hungama gives the release date only as 2015. I didn't dig into any of the other sources or search for anything more definite than that. *shrug* - not really sure what to do on that one. Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, and I appreciate your clarification in the edit summary, hence the thanks. This reference gives Mastizaade a release date of 1 May 2015, though yes, as you say, Hungama is more vague. I'd probably leave it in unless the guy can point us somewhere that says the date has been postponed. ? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfect! And it's already listed as a source in List article that some fool editor totally missed ... Works for me, and thanks. Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Cinechicken
Currently it's unreliable. Only one user PallaviSave is adding it and she even tried to create a cinechicken page. It would be better if you remove any material citing Cinechicken. -- C E  (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Gabrishl: On edits to HIT Entertainment.
I'm wondering why you took out what you did. If you look on your website, you can properly see that this is a real thing, in the form of a press release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrishl (talk • contribs) 16:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there, thank you for your note. Since you were able to find the "undo" button, it's a little confusing that you didn't see my edit summary, where I explained my rationale for removing the content and included a link. I wrote, "WP:CRYSTAL Must be sourced". But to make it easier for you, I'll explain: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We shouldn't be making statements about future events without providing ample sources in the article body, whether the statements are true or not. When you add content without sources, you're placing the burden on other editors to research whether or not the content is accurate. That's not helpful, and the burden is yours to provide sources for the content you submit. Further, when you argue that I should look on the HiT website, you make it sound so simple, but if you didn't provide a reference, editors are forced to guess where you might have heard this information. Maybe you read it on their website, maybe you read a press release from one of the trade publications, maybe you read something in the form of a Tweet, maybe you heard someone whisper in a toilet stall. Nobody knows but you. You should definitely get into the habit of submitting sources when you edit, lest you'll find many of your edits reverted by default, something that all new editors find frustrating. For information on how to add sources, please see the video at Referencing for Beginners. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

How dare you
How dare you say it's dubious of me to say my husband of twenty-five years passed away. I just wanted you guys to know because he loved editing this site and though some of his editing buddies could send condolences. At least one editor knew it was right. Shame on you. (Mrs. Meltdown (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC))
 * My condolances on your loss. Please understand that sometimes people will "prank" an editor by saying they were seriously ill or had passed away.  It's a tough call when you see an editor you don't recognize make an edit like that so they'll revert it because it may cause distress to others if that editor hadn't passed.  It's a really tough call to make.  The edit summary could have been (and probably should have been) nicer and more respectful though.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 21:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI. --Neil N  talk to me 21:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was on my way to leave a link to this Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents so you could add your thoughts regarding the similarities to AM but I see that has wisely done so earlier. Things are happening quickly so thanks again for your vigilance. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Be civil
And get off your high horse. TheDethklokGuy (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

List of Ever After High characters
Now that the character list content is moved to the main page (although still in comments), is it time to nuke the page? AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Found an encyclopedia entry by Vincent Terrance on the show (same with Monster High). It's got some good profiles for the major characters. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 01:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and did the merge. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 11:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And I was of no help! Sorry, I got caught up in sleeping and antivandalism... :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries. I should be sleeping too! :) AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 11:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Dude, you'd better put back all the crush cruft in that article or I'mma take you to ANI!!!! On a serious note, it's looking much better! Great work! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Mr. X (film)
I accept motherlandmagazine source but, now are you going to prove this is also reliable?

http://www.darkmoon.in/mrx-review

which becomes

http://blog.darkmoon.in/bollywood-horror/mr-x-film-review/

-- C E  (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

TV related RfC
You recently participated in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 20. Subsequent to this discussion, an RfC has been opened at Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series), in which you may be interested in participating. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Caps and non-caps in IPv6
Hi Cyphoid. I'm not sure why, but whenever I pull up the contributions for an IPv6, the letters in the ID are always displayed in CAPS, so that's how I copy-paste them into the list at User:Cyphoidbomb/Marhc Vandal. However, currently on that page, many of the entries show those same addresses with the letters in lowercase. This makes it somewhat difficult to see which IPs have already been listed. Apparently, I am not the only one who has experienced this; you just entered one identical to the one right above it. Only it was vice-versa, adding lowercase with caps version already existing. Where are you getting the lowercase form? -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  22:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, now that you ask me, I can't say for sure! I think I might be copy/pasting them from the article's edit history. Here for instance you'll notice the lower-case IP listed, along with Everyking's reversion, which capped them. If you have a preference it wouldn't be hard for me to convert them. Lemme know! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've converted them to upper-case for visual consistency. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow! that was quick. I was going to start doing it with lower-case from now on if I knew where to get them easily enough. Thanks. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  22:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OpenOffice makes it easy to swap caps. Took a few clicks is all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Some vandal or other
For info, in the unlikely chance that you miss it: Special:Contributions/194.81.223.1. Best, —S MALL  JIM   12:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why, that little self-deluded hypocrite is none other than HoshiNoKaabii2000. That IP geolocates to the Aberdeen City Council, which clearly isn't doing enough for at-risk youths. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if he'll still be there in two years time. —S MALL  JIM   13:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt the kid could hold a job. In the meantime, I've signed him up for this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Fairly Odd Parents
Why did you undone my edit? We don't know who Timmy married at the end of Channel Chasers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerrySa1 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about this edit? I explained my reversion here. "Confusing. Introduces lack of certainty. Explain on talk page please." You didn't include an edit summary, and the content you added introduces confusing details, which is why I asked you to explain it on the article's talk page. Even now I don't know what was intended. Do we know who the kids' parents are? If not, we should cut the content entirely. We don't, however, need speculation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Questionable Revision
18:58, 25 March 2015‎ Cyphoidbomb (talk | contribs)‎. . (59,819 bytes) (-3)‎. . (Undid revision 653492284 by Yoshams (talk) Unsourced and questionable. Regular typists can type that fast.)

Regarding the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_captioning under the section "Technical development of closed captioning", third paragraph, the number you revised the edit to (225) is unrealistic. The highest WPM recorded is 212. Could you possibly provide a source for where you got that number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.220.178 (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there, thanks for the note. My comment refers to the change here, where, without any explanation or source, editor Yoshams changes a typing speed from 225 to 80–100. Changing an unsourced number to another unsourced number has no particular value to the project, as both values are unsourced, and 225 wpm has been the status quo since 2009. You should probably ask Yoshams why he changed it. Maybe he thought it was more believeable? Doesn't make it more accurate. I can type (once I'm awake and fully caffeinated) somewhere in the 80–90 range, so there's nothing inherently wow-ing about that number to me, and the only typing training I've had was in high school. Now the one thing you might be finding difficult to wrap your head around is that the article is talking about the use of people trained as court reporters to do the captioning. Court reporters use stenotype machines, not QWERTY keyboards to change words into shorthand symbols based on phonetics. With this method, court reporters can routinely "type" 180–225 wpm (if you believe the Wikipedia article) and as high as 375. General YouTube video on how the stenograph machine works here. Hope that helps, my friend. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Citing books
I see you removed my reference at the ICC page "saying that is not how we cite books" and that is wasn't appropriate, care to expand? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

NickALive!
Confirming your first opinion and decided to revert you on Movies on this one; at least with NAM there was some polishing of the writing before they threw up their 'best network ever' spin; this is all just completely unchecked press releases that are so unattributed that I'm surprised that Viacom's lawyers haven't slammed it off the web yet. If I see this, I'm reverting, plain and simple.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't Fear the Reaper
Mr. Teatime references the Death family motto in Hogfather (it was also mentioned in the TV adaptation).

N1ckFG (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. The reference belongs in the article. I know you've been having trouble lately with some problematic Chrome extension. I'm also aware that you've disabled it, so if you add the reference to the article in question, I think we can consider this a done-deal. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, done.

Nicktoons Revision
I just got your message about the Nicktoons edit (I was off the internet lol) It's all good I'll fix the errors if there's any left but yeah don't worry about it. TheUpdates (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Marhc vandal page
Hello. Our buddy has been busy today. Hope you don't mind, but I have made several changes to your vandal page on him. Feel free to tweak, correct, add to, or revert any of my changes as you see fit. Thanks. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  00:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Gorgeous, good work, love it. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

List Of Programs Brodcast by CN Arabia
All my edits are sourced stop undoing them

first All upcoming series were confirmed either by CN Arabia itself or the dubbing studio

second The list of programs currently broadcast, is outdated it's from March , I updated it to correspond the May schedule same thing for the reruns

Then we have the minor edits i did Tasali in arabic تسالي is written with ي not ى or else it will be read tasala other thing, Chowder , Camp lazlo , dexter's lab and Powerpuff girls are CN Originals and not aquired series , you need a source for that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaiserNeko (talk • contribs) 02:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are editing at the English Wikipedia, and the expectations here require that content you submit be verifiable. You have added ZERO adequate references, you have participated in ZERO discussions, and you keep adding unsourced content. As indicated on your talk page, per WP:BURDEN, the onus is on you to add references to the article. Failure to do that is disruptive and inconsistent with this community's expecations. If you have a problem with this, you are free to edit elsewhere. Lastly, this discussion needs to take place at Talk:List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network Arabic, not here. If you keep resubmitting challenged, unsourced content, it will be considered disruptive, and you will either wind up blocked, or I will ask that the article be protected. Your choice, really. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Metacritic
Hello! My source is at the end of each Metacritic credits page, for example let's take this one from Unfriended here. At the end of the page, it states that "Movie title data, credits, and poster art provided by: IMDb". Genre and all information on the page are duplicated from IMDb here. This goes for all the films on the site. Ditto for the film I edited (Big Hero 6): here and hereAndrzejbanas (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Awwwwww crap! I'm bummed, but appreciative for the info and edification. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news. ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network Arabic
How can you refute the IP's unsourced additions when none of the existing content is sourced? &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  16:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi I refute it entirely on the basis that it is unsourced, the onus is on the contributor and the content being added does not meet WP:V, or at least anything related to former programming is. Adding unsourced content to unsourced content doesn't improve anything. There's no presumption that the existing content or the new content is accurate, and at some point we have to challenge the content and demand a source, or else it's just an endless ebb and flow of meaningless slurry. I would be genuinely surprised if any of the former broadcast content meets WP:V. How does one verify, exactly, that season two of The Looney Tunes Show aired before season one as the article claims? Or that only 3 seasons of The Smurfs aired between June 12, 2011 and June 13, 2012, or that Inspector Gadget and the Powerpuff Girls aired at all? I've attempted numerous times to reach out to various of these actors, including on the talk page, but most of them are IP-hoppers and/or aren't interested in discussion. Surely they notice that the content is being removed. Surely they have wondered why and have checked the edit history. I've also boldly removed content but it keeps coming back. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A step? Reference desk/Language. I don't believe WikiProject Television holds these international offshoot programming lineup lists in high regard. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I just have mixed feelings about semi-protecting. How do I know I'm locking it up in a bad state? Part of me wants to trust the openness of the wiki and let users try to correct things. But just as you say, I think the page history has proven it'll only serve as a playground for fans to make arbitrary changes. Something like this should instead be on Wikia. On Wikipedia, if after repeated attempts, we are unable to verify anything, the article should simply be deleted, or in this case redirected, I suppose. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  17:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Your points are understood. We could wait a few days to see if there's any help from the reference desk. I could also float a query past the WikiProject to see how they think it should be handled. ? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes notifying the WikiProject sounds like a good idea. I'm holding off on protecting right now, but I'll keep an eye on it and see how things develop. Thanks &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  17:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks m'man. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:AIV
I have approved your request. Please wait until an admin can come to take care of this. Electrified Man Attacks! (Face my wrath!) 11:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Just cuz I feel like it.

Electrified Man Attacks! (Face my wrath!) 11:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Re: Movie
Kind of poor form to assume that I removed that piece of information because I didn't like it, isn't it? I genuinely thought it was useless/superseded information that didn't add to anyone's knowledge of the film, but I did look at a number of another of other film pages and it looks like Metacritic is very commonly cited. (Although for what it's worth I didn't find any movies citing information aggregated from as few as six reviews!).

I.e., I admit to making a procedural error, but you certainly weren't very friendly/reasonable about it (attributing a primary motive other than the legitimate one I mentioned in my edit). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbutler3331 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the note. Well there was obviously something you didn't like about it, but your point is noted, and I apologize for the sharpness of my summary. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, whether or not I "obviously [don't like]" the information is immaterial as to whether or not it is relevant to include in an article. You were just editorializing, in addition to assuming that you knew what my primary motivation was for the edit. Be careful with assumptions (unless you're accusing me of an improper bias for editing the article - in which case you should do so explicitly). I do appreciate the apology though for the tone. Take care & peace to you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbutler3331 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There was no editorialization beyond my brief 11 word edit summary, so I'm not sure what you're talking about and I'm, respectfully, forced to ignore the additional rebuke. You publicly expressed disdain for the very content you removed from the article five minutes later, and then again two hours later. However, you did think twice about the later removal and reverted it. Now, moving back on topic, the reason why we include both RT and Metacritic, is that they have different metrics for evaluating response, even if we're talking about the same reviews being evaluated bye each site. For a film like Hey Arnold! The Movie, RT and Metacritic are not eye-to-eye. RT has more of a pass/fail system, in this case, the film was a rotten tomato, where Metacritic tends to evaluate on a slightly more graduated scale and the film earned a "mixed" rating. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Who says an 11 word statement can't involve editorializing? I think it's pretty clear that you were suggesting that I removed the information (mostly/entirely) because I didn't like it. You could have done the proper thing and just pointed out why the material belonged in the article. Instead, you chose to make it personal (about my motives).

You happen to be right - I was a little taken aback that the article could indicate that the critical consensus involved "Overwhelming dislike" based on just six reviews (when most movies on the site that cite Metacritic have dozens, and one of the reviews was even quoted on Metacritic as saying "Ban this sick filth." Really, that's legitimate criticism?), but it seemed like a totally legitimate edit to make considering the aforementioned facts and the additional redundancy involved since these reviews were included as part of the larger Rotten Tomatoes sample. You've pointed out why I was wrong with these assumptions, at least per Wiki policy, and I admit error there (I have only edited very sporadically over the years), but that still doesn't excuse your (twice, now) impugning my motives for removing the information.

Ignore whatever you want; it's your prerogative (I'm guessing you actually meant "disagree with"/"deny the substance of," given the fact that you addressed to it anyway). Just understand that you made things personal by telling me I was removing something (implicitly mostly or entirely) because I didn't like it. I don't edit here often and haven't done so in a long time, but being chastised for a good faith edit by someone when I do isn't fun (when the appropriate policy could have just been pointed out. I would have been totally cool with that!).

I mean, do I sound like someone dumb enough to think that not liking a piece of information is valid grounds for suggesting its removal?

Gotta get back to the real world now, but man, give people the benefit of the doubt sometimes :)

Take care, sir or ma'am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbutler3331 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Friendios105
Suzzane martin was the creator of crowded, so i put samjen productions because she founded the company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendios105 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't understand your comment. You need to support your additions with sources, not with unsupported statements. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks. Though I'm very happy to be jokey, my edit wasn't intended to be funny. So if it came across as a joke, then we should consider changing it, since I expect my edits to be consistent with NPOV. If only one review has been provided, then maybe "generally positive reviews" is not sufficient, but then neither is the sentimetn "it received critical acclaim". It's not abnormal to cite a source for a specific overall critical analysis. For example at Jupiter Ascending where the specific analysis is sourced to the Christian Science Monitor, but the aggregation results support the assertion. If it's different at Drushyam, then let's avoid any summary of critical response and go with a straight breakdown of reviews that are geared toward NPOV. "This review was 5/5, this review was 3.5/5, this was 3/5" etc. I'm not a big fan of summarizing critical response anyway. I'd rather pick a neutral balance of reviews and leave it at that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to thank you for your "sense of humour", MOS related and NPOV based edits on this article which i am planning to take it to GA status. I believe you shall help me. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Mad Max
So as a general rule is there anytime when I should critical acclaim in an article? Broncosman12 (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Broncosman12
 * I have no idea what you're asking, but you may want to float your question by WikiProject Film, with some examples for consideration, so that you get a wider range of responses than just mine. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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). Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 20:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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
Sorry bout that, wasn't intending to revert you, just someone else. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 15:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah! Well then that was quickly resolved. :) Thanks, Rusted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)


 * , 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)


 * 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)

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&#39;Musket (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, 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)

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)
 * 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)

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

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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.


 * 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)
 * , 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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. Electric Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 20:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


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

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)


 * 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)

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

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

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)
 * 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)

Total Drama Presents: The Ridonculous Race‎
I don't agree with this source. It's not a verified Twitter account. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Great, it seems we're on the same page. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

trivial interest
if the murderer is of such trivial interest why is he listed there at all? That's my point, using your words — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeblow (talk • contribs) 01:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you haven't provided any context, I can only assume you're talking about this reversion I made to content you added. I don't know that I ever said the murderer is of trivial interest. Perhaps you can show me differently. Hernandez is notable as a football player, and perhaps moreso as a murderer. That's not at issue. What is at issue, is expanding the text with ephemeral content about additional murder charges he is facing. I don't see the academic value of that, and it doesn't make sense that we should keep updating Aaron Hernandez content all across the Wiki. Even if he's convicted of other murders, he's still a murderer, so the existing content would still be relevant. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)


 * The user is an anonymous editor, and is notorious in adding controversial references including the titled "racist theme" of the series, innuendos, and misconceptions. As you can tell this user has vandalized plenty of times to let it slide.

2601:40D:C000:ECF2:F43A:9DFC:97BA:19F9 (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was me. Anyways, the vandal is: 2607:fb90:419:d5b1:0:2a:b10d:cd01. BackyardigansKaibigan (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

CN Arabic
Hi,

I didn't mention any source because I got the news from a YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2ZPz39kDjc I don't think it counts as an appropriate source.

Greetings, Kikker v11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikker v11 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)