User talk:Zombie Philosopher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.

Hello, Zombie Philosopher, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

  • 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)[reply]


Why can't I edit some particular pages?
Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.
Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?
Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.
How do I create an article?
See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.
How do I create citations?
  1. Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
  2. Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
  3. In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
  4. Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
  5. Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
  6. In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
  7. If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?
A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

March 2023[edit]

Information icon 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)[reply]

The die is cast, eh?[edit]

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)[reply]

September 2023[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 multiple highly reputable sources.
If you continue this behavior you will be reported at WP:ANI. Mike Allen 16:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. [1][2][3][4][5] Zombie Philosopher (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  1. ^ https://rumble.com/v2e71i5-adam-drivers-65-is-a-huge-box-office-bomb-proven-again-no-new-movie-stars-e.html
  2. ^ https://movieweb.com/adam-drivers-post-star-wars-box-office-bomb-roars-to-number-1-on-netflix
  3. ^ https://www.looper.com/1227448/why-adam-drivers-65-bombed-at-the-box-office/
  4. ^ https://www.slashfilm.com/1226287/adam-drivers-dinosaur-movie-65-got-buried-at-the-box-office-what-happened/
  5. ^ https://flipboard.com/topic/boxoffice/why-adam-driver-s-65-bombed-at-the-box-office
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zombie_Philosopher&oldid=1176274312"