Talk:Cinimod Studio
 | A fact from Cinimod Studio appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 August 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,406 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Controversy[edit]
I've removed this section:
Controversy[edit]
The UFO performance was considered controversial by many UFO believers[who?] as they argued it discredited the validity of their interests in 'real' UFOs.[citation needed] A video clip posted to YouTube raised speculation among registered users that the flight itself had not occurred as there were apparent discrepancies in the video footage [1].
For two reasons
a) the first part is unsourced, and really just fluff that anyone could throw in, and b) the second part may just as well be unsourced. There are idiots out there who dispute anything that is presented to them. Some jackass can go on Youtube and say that the Moon Landings never happened, or that 9/11 was faked, or that Babe Ruth was a reptiloid based on "apparent discrepancies in the video footage" on Youtube. Is that really any reason to create a "controversy" section in a Wikipedia article? I think the standard should be higher, and something more substantial than simply anonymous claims in the comments section of Youtube needs to be presented, otherwise, anyone could discredit anyone and anything here.139.48.25.61 (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Dang. I'd always wondered what bothered me about Babe Ruth. The reptiloid idea explains everything! A2Kafir (and...?) 18:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it's just an example. I've never actually seen a fat reptiloid. And lived.139.48.25.61 (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
References
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cinimod Studio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.fxdesignawards.co.uk/previous.htm - Added
{{dead link}}tag to https://www.emapawards.com/lightingdesignawards2010 - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140708004329/http://awards.lighting.co.uk/2014-winners to http://awards.lighting.co.uk/2014-winners
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.blueprintmagazine.co.uk/index.php/art/kinetic-art-of-the-future/ - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120724122950/http://www.lighting.co.uk/projects/crowd-controls/8618922.article to http://www.lighting.co.uk/projects/crowd-controls/8618922.article
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)