User talk:Zombie Philosopher



Hello, Zombie Philosopher, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
 * Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
 * Check out some of these pages:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode


 * If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, [ ask me on my talk page], or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

March 2023
Hello, I'm Binksternet. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of electronic music genres, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The die is cast, eh?
Useless, maybe, but not "random". These numbers, like everything, are unchangeable products of many factors (known and unknown), themselves the sum of additional parts. "Unpredictable", you might say, thus may as well be random to those without the full backstory (all of us). Aside from that, you seem to understand how ITN "works". Cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at 65 (film), you may be blocked from editing.  Mike  Allen   13:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? It's not original research. Movies that have failed to meet a break-even point have been constantly labeled as box-office bombs. In the vast majority of cases with sources. I'm reverting your edit as it wasn't original research. If you've seen box-office bombs being mentioned on movies you would know why they are labeled as such. My failure to provide a source, which are readily available doesn't make my very common-sense edit an "original research". So before you get controlling, accusatory, or indulgent in your power as a Wikipedia power-user step back and take a breath before threatening people over your own miscalculation and misinterpretation of the events and edit. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't know how to edit on Wikipedia. It's about that most of your edits are just going to pages and writing box office bombs in the LEAD with no other context.  You cite one half-way reputable source (after being asked to provide a source that you should have done to begin with), you cite ScreenRant. We need MULTIPLE reliable sources, see MOS:ACCLAIMED that states: Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources. Describing a film with superlatives such as "critically acclaimed" or "box-office bomb" is loaded language and an exceptional claim that must be attributed to highly reputable sources.
 * If you continue this behavior you will be reported at WP:ANI.  Mike  Allen   16:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * You are HIGH on your own power, JESUS. This obviously means a lot to you, so go ahead and lord over these articles. I really don't care to dissect this inanity. You win, go on making the world a better place one edit at a time. "If you continue, I'm telling." lol dude. Plethora of sources for the consensus btw, but I honestly do not care.    Zombie Philosopher (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Just look at how you speak in your edits " I understand you may get a thrill out of it but this isn't how Wikipedia works and if you continue that behavior you won't be here very long." Fucking unhinged passive aggressive accusatory bullshit. [Don't interpret my words as emotion or anger, just descriptive]. "I understand you may get a high off of this, but..." Are you fucking detached from this world? Whatever happened to assuming good faith on Wikipedia? You think I'm getting a high off of some completely irrelevant edits that I thought make perfect sense due to common consensus, common usage, and conventional application, especially for a movie that not only failed to break-even but barely got back its production cost? Take a vacation from Wikipedia, so maybe you can relearn how to speak to people online to prevent it devolving into whatever the fuck this was. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)