User talk:InedibleHulk/Archive

Welcome!

Hello, InedibleHulk/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- ran (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Chael Sonnen

• It was not repetitive what I typed. Why name the titles differently when they share similarities? The second title that I put on had a difference by being named Silva vs. Sonnen II (II, being the difference).Ingardot (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. But you had "Silva vs Sonnen, Middleweight Championship Fight". That's too much for a title. Either "Silva vs Sonnen" or "Middleweight Championship Fight" would work. But they both describe the same fight, so having both in the title is redundant. Understand? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright so we can probably call the 1st title just Silva vs Sonnen while the other Silva vs. Sonnen II. Redundant would be if both of those titles are word for word, the same.Ingardot (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that works. There's no period in "vs", though. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

alright. There is a dot but I won't put it.Ingardot (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

/Archive

Kayfabe

Well, I don't have a record of those. I was looking at WWE.com, and they've been tightlipped about No Way Out so far.--Toffile 13:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not the moderator. I'm just doing what the WikiProject wants us to do. Point's now moot anyway.--Toffile 12:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. When you recently edited 2 Cold Scorpio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Booker T (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, thank you! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Victims of 9/11

Hi. Regarding your recent edits to Berry Berenson, Garnet Bailey, Carolyn Beug, William E. Caswell, and Wilson Flagg, the Lead section of an article is intended to be a summary of the article's most salient information, as indicated by WP:LEAD, and thus, that necessarily means that it duplicates some information found further down in the article. That the article's subject is one of the people who died in the 9/11 attacks (and one of only 40 or so victims who have their own Wikipedia article) is certainly salient. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles on subjects with prior notability can certainly include those accomplishments along with the fact that they died on 9/11. It doesn't have to be Either/Or. A number of subjects have achieved notability in multiple distinct areas, which are covered in the Lead. The Lead in the Jerry Lewis article, for example, includes both in the information on his entertainment career, and his charity work. Mentioning one doesn't have to constitute undue weight.

Also, please don't forget to sign your talk page posts. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Overeem and UFC 146

Hey, no problem asking why I re-added it. I did that because the folks who want UFC pages removed from Wikipedia argue the reasoning is that they aren't notable. All of that info regarding Overeem's test and subsequent NSAC hearing helped further establish why this particular event is notable. Basically, the more info written about it, the more notable it seems to them. I understand it is redundant with Overeem's own page, but I feel it can only help the article further maintain its standing here. Udar55 (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I'm just laying back at this point as it appears nothing will appease them. Personally, I felt my argument that UFC events should be treated just as movie entries here was valid as they are mostly available as a product for purchase. Regardless, I appreciate your efforts that you've been doing for years on here. And, yeah, JDS has got this one easily. First round, TKO. Nice to meet you. Udar55 (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL! Just saw your new message. Reminds me of the old Rockwell 80s song Somebody's Watching Me. Anyway, feel free to change it however you want. We certainly don't want "undue weight" on here. Udar55 (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for being anal

If a BLP is confirmed in connection with a video, then it may be included. There is no confirmation that they are connected. A court of law may decide this, not the media, nor wp. Feel free to change the section title to The video, np with me over that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I am perfectly ok with that section title you edited to. You didn't actually have to give a reason for the change in the section, but that may help others understand how even titles can violate BLP policy if they look back in the page history. I still feel admin should go through and erase some things that have been removed that may have violated BLP and can still be viewed in history.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I do understand your points. We may agree to disagree, but I do feel we will get along fine as editors. I am just very anal about BLP talk pages. I don't edit the articles myself much as I don't know as much as the editors that are concerned about the content of them. I feel there is enough cited dirty laundry in the articles themselves, and many editors try to weasel in more on the talk pages. I just remove any crap that I think is crap. If I state why, then that just brings up arguments as to my reasoning. In other words: If I see crap in a BLP without a source, I just remove it. I will try and leave better edit summaries in the future, and I aplogize again if I have irked you in any way.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, but what does "irk" me is this dual talk page conversation system. Not faulting you for that, but I'm strictly "one page style" from here on (for everyone). I'm sure we can get along fine as well, but if you touch my comments or any comment I've replied to in a way that makes me appear to say something I didn't intend (without a SOLID policy-based argument), I will be more than irked. I imagine most editors would be, too. Just a heads up. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. I have since dropped hints about others doing redactions before I stick my fumbling face in them. I am also wondering if someone should create an article about the video itself. This would avoid any blp issues and could easily be added to any blp article after a conviction? It would allow us to provide more about the video without involving any victim/investigation spin-off page or a blp page. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the video is adequately covered in the article, and in Bestgore.com. I highly doubt it would stand on its own notability. This is an open encyclopedia, so you're free to try, of course. But expect it to be contested. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Prime objective

Please feel free to respond. Stevertigo (t | c) 01:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to respond to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Prime objective. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the fixit tags from the meta page. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for claiming in the MfD that I hadn't responded to your "corrections". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That's inaccurate. I said I corrected you at the WP:Prime objective talk page, and that you hadn't yet responded at the WT:DAB talk page. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You claimed (in the MfD) that I hadn't responded at WT:DAB. You made this claim eight minutes after I responded. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see your response until after I commented. Thank you for pointing this out. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Cung Le and flags

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/386683_308847835811428_1118996196_n.jpg

Found this. No need to revert, this is the flag the UFC represents him with. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's better than nothing, but a photo from some Facebook account is not a reliable source, without secondary sources to back up your interpretation. According to his official bio at the official UFC site, he is "the only American Wushu Kung Fu Athlete to have three World medals. I also was California Junior State Champion (158 lbs) and AAU Freestyle and Greco Roman National Champion (163 lbs). Also, California State High School Wrestling All-American." Sherdog acknowledges he is an American here. From his official website, "The action in a Sanshou match is constant, dynamic, and exciting, and it fit the Vietnamese-American wunderkind like a glove..." When you add it all together with the fact that South Vietnam no longer exists, it's clear as day. If you want to ignore all this factual info in favour of one screencap, that's your choice. But you're wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Dude, are you serious... Cung Le isnt American, jeez... Bro, look: http://www.ufc.com/program

Turn some pages on the ebook there lad, til you get to the page with all the flags and the fights.

See that? Wanna say im wrong now? Wheres your factual info? Thats right, I bet you're friends with that MtKing kid.

How's about you admit you're wrong, and stop changing it. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I just see spinning loading circles, so I can't say anything about that. My factual info is still in the same places I pointed out above, and you're probably still wrong. I'm no fan of MtKing and I'm not the one changing anything, just reverting to what reliable sources already say. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Bleacher Report, isnt a reliable source. Your info isnt factual, Cung Le wasnt born in the USA. Im one of of the people who helped keep an individual page for UFC 148. I think I know what im doing. I'm not wrong, and if this is an issue, then lets put it up for a vote. Because I dont wanna get into an edit war. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A response like that gives me no reason to assume good faith. The other five sources are fine. I (and other users) have given you detailed reasons why it doesn't belong, citing relevant policies and explaining why "born in" doesn't equal nationality. You seem unwilling to listen to reason. If you feel like you need to vote, I can't stop you. Talk page consensus seems against your idea, 4-1, for what it's worth. Any further disruption will receive further warnings. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyways, it's all in good faith, but if you dont have good faith, I dont know what to tell you. I think this compromise with Pinoy is a good idea. To keep the UFC 148 page factual and to stop edit wars. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

ROH Triple Crown

Unfortunately, the source of the original TC definition was ROHwrestling.com itself, and they took the reference article down (and apparently never archived it).

If you go back through the TC article's history, you'd see that was the reference used when the ROH TC was first included.

But as I said, ROH's website didn't archive it.

But it did exist, and that was what was used.

Vjmlhds 04:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it archived on The Wayback Machine?

A reasonable warning

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at UFC 148. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I see what you did there. Very clever! I guess we're even now, or something? No wait, you deleted your valid warning first. I lose. Even though I didn't change anything since I warned you. You did, twice. If you want to revert again, be my guest. Pinoy's version makes more sense, anyway. Unlike this copied warning. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Bleacher Report

Who says that Bleacher Report is an unreliable source? It is the third biggest and most visited sports media outlet in the US. LlamaAl (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The pro wrestling Wikiproject says so. My apologies if you're referring to an MMA article. Searching Wikipedia for "bleacher report" reliable will give you other opinions, many considering the open blog format to be unreliable. I see it as a small step above IMDB and Wordpress. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LlamaAl (talk • contribs) 21:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

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

- Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Replied - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Replied again - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Discovery Channel

The channel list is meant mainly for the American network, with some rare cases for international providers. The editor erroneously added channel locations for Poland to American articles. There is a Discovery Channel Poland article, so it has been placed in the proper article now; that was the reason for reversion. Nate • (chatter) 07:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is the guideline/discussion on this rule? And what qualifies as a "rare case"? Are Mexico, Britain and Argentina the rare cases, or oversights? It seems to me the channel list should include all channel numbers, if they air the American version of the channel (even translated). Otherwise, it seems unusually US-centric. Significantly different versions should be excluded, of course. I'm not sure which category the Polish one is in. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The article talks about the American network. Poland has their own network and doesn't recieve the American version. I have put the proper channel location in the proper article. It was a simple error made by an editor I have corrected them on. Unfortunately I don't make the rules on why we don't have a main American network suffixed with (US cable channel) on the end. And if we put every channel location in the main article for every system in the world even if they dont recieve the American channel it would be a case of 'infobox bigger than the article'. Nate • (chatter) 15:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If they don't receive the American channel, they don't belong. But if they do, they should. American channels (like movies, music, burgers) have an impact outside the country of origin. We shouldn't ignore that. Anyway, where is this rule? I think I'd be better off arguing on that page than with you here. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no rule, is there? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

In response

In response to the comment you felt necessary to bring to my talk page... Considering I thoroughly disagree that the so-called relevant disagree backs up your point, no I do not agree it should be carried out across all pages. I already stated my point. It's pointless to keep going on about it. NJZombie (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Like the discussion title says, don't take it personally! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. When you recently edited Rod Serling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Wallace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Tony Scott

I used an Evening Standard reference here, yes I saw the discrepancy in the two Telegraph articles! --Canley (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I added a Telegraph reference for "Sanders". That name gets more Google hits with "Tony Scott". Maybe we can note both names? Maybe one's a maiden name and one's a later husband's? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Could be... the Sanders name seems to have come from NNDB, which was one of the few pre-death references I could find. NNDB says Glynis Sanders was an advertising executive, but some of the newspapers say her name was Glynis Staunton, a BBC producer. Not impossible that she was both, or had both names, as you say, but the references seem very contradictory. Also, it's hard to tell if any of these references are a case of "Citogenesis"! --Canley (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Tough to say for sure. Since Wikipedia's about verifiability, not truth, I think we should include both, with sources. "Glynis Sanders (or Staunton)" or the other way around. Let readers choose whichever they like best. It doesn't make a difference in understanding the article, either way, even if her name was Rapunzel. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al Jazeera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page War in Afghanistan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Stefan Struve

Not to argue a point, but I'm actually interested. In my mind, and to my experience a technical submission is a submission that ends the fight without a fighter ever tapping. In the case of a corner throwing in the towel to prevent a technical submission, it would be because their fighter was caught in a submission hold but refusing to tap. The referee is responsible for the fighter if he refuses to tap so perhaps it would be considered a combination of both a referee's call and a state of being. Either way it's a fine line. Certainly I would argue that a technical submission could exist without a referee, it would just mean that one person submitted another without that person tapping. Thoughts? Thaddeus Venture (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's called a technical submission if it ends the fight. If it doesn't end the fight, it's just called passing out (or breaking a bone or whatever). In this case, the corner decided a technical submission was inevitable, so they threw in the towel. But that's not the same as ending the fight. Only the ref can do that. If the corner throws in a towel or verbally forfeits, the ref is obliged to call the fight. Not because of whatever reason the corner had to do so. Simply because they did. Even if a fighter is perfectly healthy and winning the fight, if their corner wants to give up just to be a dick, the ref has to call it, as a corner stoppage. General English-wise, you could say passing out is your body's way of submitting against your will. But for MMA purposes, the term "technical submission" refers strictly to a method of victory. The ref called it on the towel before he could call the submission, even though the submission attempt caused the towel. I'm not exactly explaining this neatly, but I hope you understand. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No no, I understand how it works, I just wonder if it happens often enough that a fighter breaks a bone or passes out from a submission, but the fight is not waved off, to differentiate between the "idea" of a technical submission (being a submission that results in injury or unconsciousness rather than tapping), and the "ruling" of technical submission, being a judgement that the referee or athletic commission hands out as the end result of a fight. Is the prevalence of submissions that result in serious injury or unconsciousness, but not stoppages, high enough that they need to be differentiated from actual calls? I don't know. I know it has happened, but I don't know how often. I just think it's an interesting argument of semantics, especially when I'm attempting to fill in the minor details of interest for MMA fighters careers (although really only those fighters in the UFC). I actually wrote the original entry you reverted it back to, but thought I should shorten it, I'll leave it now, the extra clarity is better.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a rare occurrence, but that really isn't relevant. We should always differentiate. What matters is that the ref told the announcer the fight was stopped due to corner stoppage, the announcer announced this, Sherdog reported it and Wikipedia should reflect it. We can't say the fight was stopped due to technical submission, because it simply wasn't. If a guy wins a decision after rocking his opponent hard enough it could have reasonably been considered a TKO, we wouldn't say he won by TKO. Passing out was likewise a means to an end, but the end was the towel. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in the Stefan Struve fight, I wrote the original description, and imprecisely changed it for the sake of space considerations. However I would note that in the case of many, if not most small shows, all the information available is what is officially provided to the athletic commission, if there even is one. Sherdog isn't contacting every promotion they post results for. The official results of the fight may therefor come from the referee, the announcer, the promoter, or possibly the commission themselves. These results may therefore contain numerous inaccuracies depending on the knowledge of those involved. Was something a corner stoppage, or a doctor stoppage, or a submission due to injury. If and when other descriptions of these events exist they should be used to their greatest possible extent. I'm not saying that Sherdog shouldn't be the first and best resource, but the idea that they really took the time to look at whether a corner stoppage for "fighter x" in "show x" 2002 was actually a verbal submission or possibly a doctors stoppage is a bit overly trusting. The end goal should be accuracy whenever possible, especially in a sport like MMA which has a huge number of low profile, minimally regulated, and minimally reported events. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, accuracy is good. If there's a reliable source that says this was a technical submission, that would be worth a look. Sherdog may have factual errors about obscure shows, but we'd need evidence of that, not just hunches. Remember, Wikipedia is more about verifiability than truth. In a way, we're "overly trusting" in adding anything we didn't see with our own eyes, from any source. I wouldn't swear on my life it ended like Sherdog says, but I'm totally fine with allowing it on Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Donnie Darko

This is not a fansite, in which every connection (real or imagined) between characters can be spelled out in great detail. This is an encyclopedia, and there are guidelines for how much and what kind of information should be included in the plot summary. Those of us who are active participants in WikiProject Film know that plot summaries are constantly being expanded to include all sorts of details that are not necessary, which is exactly why we are vigilant to stop this from happening. Any further discussion on this matter should take place on the article talk page. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Donnie Darko shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Betty Logan (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to warn the other guy. My addition is perfectly fine by Wikipedia standards, verifiable and informative. But yeah, we'll do the RfC thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Don't forget to warn the other guy"? I have not violated 3RR, you have. I have reverted exactly 3 times. And, no, this garbage you have added is not "perfectly fine" as we have been trying to tell you, to no avail. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Al Jazeera

Hi, please see that discussion: Talk:Al Jazeera#Up to date description. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Your most recent reversion at Donnie Darko is your 4th in less than 24 hours, putting you in violation of 3RR. This is made all the worse by using a lie to justify your revert. I suggest you revert yourself or I will be forced to report you for your violation. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What lie are you talking about? I figured I'd established consensus by refuting all your arguments. Then I was informed an outside party has to declare it. It was an honest mistake. If I don't revert it, you're not forced to do anything. You can choose to sink to it or not. If you're that intent on reverting for now, go ahead. I won't threaten to tattle, if that's what you're worried about. But I stand by my edit. It's perfectly legit and what's best for the article. Reverting would be like renouncing. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Three Little Pigs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evangelist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit war at Donnie Darko

Hi InedibleHulk. You appear to be engaged in a slow edit war at Donnie Darko, in which a number of other editors are reverting your addition of the Time Travel section. I'd like to ask you to leave the article alone, at least untiil the current RfC is decided - consensus at both Talk:Donnie Darko and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film seems to be against the inclusion of this section. If the RfC concludes with a decision to retain the Time Travel section, it can be readded; in the meantime its ommission is not the end of the world. I'd rather not see you blocked for edit warring, but that's the direction this is currently headed - let's not let it get that far. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 13:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Subway

I like this edit-summary:) DMacks (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I do, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense

This edit of yours that added nonsense to the Three Little Pigs article made it onto the Main Page. Congratulations? Graham87 07:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess. I don't consider it nonsense. These guys didn't think it was that stupid either. In any case, that's some strange timing with your edit. The edit summary confused me for a few seconds. Thought you were instantly re-adding the Grimm stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The people in the NYT article were clearly using the Three Pigs story whymsically, not taking it seriously. But you have a point; my edit summary could have been clearer. Graham87 09:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It was fine. A little confusion is amusing. Three Little Pigs is a whimsical story, but hurricane mitigation is damn serious. That they used the title for their project illustrates that they saw a clear connection between the two things. Not good enough to use as a citation, I know. That's why the only dubious claim on the current POTD is the "1840s, thought to be much older" thing. At least my claim had some reasoning behind it. It's all good, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Minor edit?

This doesn't seem very minor to me. Seeing as your previous edits were not marked as minor, I'll trust that this was a mistake. TortoiseWrath (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I remember reading that removal of vandalism should be marked as minor. I may be mistaken in considering it vandalism, but unfounded Hitler associations generally smell like troll to me. Sorry if marking it as minor caused any problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I checked the policy and removing vandalism should be marked minor, but removing a tag should not. No advice on what to do about removing vandalism with tags attached. Can't just leave the tag. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"... if you are in doubt about whether an edit is minor or not, it is always safer not to mark it as minor"

No problems caused here, just for future reference. TortoiseWrath (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That's funny. That rule was just added, because of this misunderstanding. Good future reference, but not in the past. Check that guideline's Talk Page. No problems here, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA

Hello,

i noticed you edited a Mixed Martial Arts page in August, but you haven't listed yourself as a Participant on the Wikiproject for Mixed Martial Arts pages. I've decided to try to drum up interest to get more people involved!

Kevlar (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm somewhat involved in MMA editing, but not in any official capacity. I appreciate your recruitment efforts, but I'd rather remain a general Wikipedia editor than attached to any one Wikiproject. But yes, I am aware of the MMA guidelines and MOS, and have the project Talk Page on my watchlist. You can consider me an unofficial participant, if you'd like. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You need not join any Wikiproject to edit articles. You just can't edit the Project pages or change the ratings and place templates on their behalf...but you may still engage in discussions on their talkpage and the talkpage of any article. I, however encourage you to feel comfortable enough to join a WikiProject of your choosing as it really is a great way to collaborate with editors to improve the encyclopedia...of course you seem more tham capable of making improvements on your own...but looks like you're going to attract Project members wanting you to join them. That's a good thing I think.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but I've been on Wikipedia for almost seven years. I've noticed I can edit and discuss, and am familiar with a few Wikiprojects. I collaborate often enough, without "signing up" anywhere. I think it works. But thanks for trying to be helpful! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Fox News". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 05:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by your name, EarwigBot. So I'll heed your words. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Kendall Windham

I've moved the page back to Kendall Windham.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm reverting this mess manually. Fun. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Not at all

Yes, we both agree. I reverted while you're editing. Because of this I reverted my reversion. Can you, please, help with two users (Vjmlhds and Mikeymike2001)? Both of them have the habit of reverts edits without reading and of being possessive about the articles taking ownership of them. I'll be grateful.WWEJobber (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had a couple discussions with Vjmlhds about wrongly adding people to the main roster. He appears to have been adamant about Lawler for years. It seems he understands now. I haven't noticed a problem with Mikeymike2001, but if I do, I'll try to address it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, all I was doing is removing the two Vinces and Triple Hs that WWEJobber thinks it's needed on the List of WWE personnel. Also he attacks me and Vjmlhds on Vj's talk page.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There are two articles about "Vince", so there is no double listing of him. About Triple H, InedibleHulk agrees with me that he is too important as an Executive Officer nowadays. And I didn't attack anyone. I just asked you two to stop bitching on the other's page because you are already grown ups to gossip around. It's a childish behaviour.WWEJobber (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Jobber has a point about Mr. McMahon and Vince McMahon being technically different characters (though even Mr. McMahon should be in Other On- Air Personnel, as he hasn't had a match since WM26.) But Triple H is an occasional wrestler, who WWE now considers retired as a wrestler. If he returns to wrestling, we should add him to the active roster. If he returns to TV as a non-wrestler, he should be in Other On-Air Personnel. For now, he should be in the Executive section only. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The only problem there is that WWE still lists Triple H as part of the main roster.WWEJobber (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That source doesn't say anything about main roster. Just a section called "Superstars". The Wiki article says WWE occasionally calls ALL performers that. Tony Chimel is also listed here. Does that make him an active wrestler? You may have a case for listing Triple H along with Chimel in Other On-Air, but even that is debatable, given the retirement source. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with him in Other On-Air.WWEJobber (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best to keep him in Executive, with a note saying he occasionally appears on-air. But let's keep the discussion on the Talk Page, not here. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I came to a solution that should appeal to everybody.WWEJobber (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Your recent editing history at Donnie Darko shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MASEM (t) 05:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been counting. And discussing with Ring. And not full-out reverting, but making and leaving minor changes, toward a compromise. WP:BRD consensus building, pretty much. It's tedious with some people, but it's ultimately more productive than pure war. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your support.

Would you please consider commenting at Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Proposed_alternate_version? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Would you mind offering your two cents at Talk:Donnie_Darko#Correct_to_say_.22The_28_days_run_in_reverse.22_or_.22Scenes_from_the_28_days_run_in_reverse.22.? This discussion could use an outside opinion or two. Don't feel obliged to agree with me, just give your honest thoughts (if you have any on the matter). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I see you're cleaning up The Encore

I didn't create the page, but I like what you are doing. Are you gonna clean up more tag team articles? I've already trying to clean up and source some info on an article I've made for Rhodes Scholars. Keith Okamoto (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I clean some things up when I stumble across them. Some I don't. I don't really have a plan. There is concern at the Wrestling Wikiproject that The Encore is not notable enough for Wikipedia, and even cleaned up, that's still a valid point. Rhodes Scholars may be in the same boat. Maybe you'd like to give your opinion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling#Tag_Team_relevance? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I put some time into cleaning your article, but you edited during this and caused an edit conflict. I can't copy and paste and don't feel like repeating the edit. Not totally your fault, but I'm going to leave it as is for now. I might try again later. I will remove the In Wrestling section, however, as the info there is relevant to the individuals only, not the team. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The Encore

I did state my reasons on The Encore talk page. Just because the "The Band" was not cited or so, doesn't mean delete the members finishers and nicknames, which are cited by the way. I made the page and cited majority of it, and I would gladly not mind you editing the stuff that AREN'T cited.

First, sign your comments with four ~. I've explained the finisher thing separately from the Band thing on the Talk Page. This article is about the stable, not the individual wrestlers. They have their own separate articles for this kind of stuff. These moves haven't been used to finish a match involving The Encore (which hasn't even had a tag match yet), so to say these are the stable's finishers is just blatantly false. Please keep any further discussion on the Talk Page. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello InedibleHulk. I restored the content you removed from Fox News Channel.[1] I appreciate your bold actions but chose to revert your edit in favor of further discussion. Please discuss your concerns on the articles talk page so we can address them with a consensus of thoughtful editors while reviewing the reliable sources. Thank you - 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone else brought it up on the Talk Page. I just agreed with them. It's not a matter of reliable sources; certainly verifiable, but not appropriate for a section named "Controversy". Nobody's arguing it was a mistake on FOX's part. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that response. I will comment at the article talk page. I glanced at it, and the discussion points are valid. FWIW I meant to commend you, for the result of your initial efforts in neutralizing the tone. You are clearly competent, and motivate upon reason; which is why I support the comment you made on the talk page! Your suggestion, to reduce prose to a truthfully succinct account; even if that result was a mere one or two sentences. (btw I'd like to apply the same standard; to the same end, for the other sections as well)

I am stubborn to admit, this is the extent of compromise; yet unequivocal that the bright-line rest's here! The last thing I would hope to be doing in the coming days, would be "defending a bright-line"; for having happened into a situation, where I could not further bend. "I hope like hell" (punkpeter for: I pray to god) I'm not tested, to defend on this line; (for being weary) and that instead, you will lead your inclination, (with my support) and allow no less than a succinct reduction. "Amen" (punkpeter for: in Christ's name; Amen!) 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think one of us is more confused than the other. Not sure which one yet. I'll check the Talk Page. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to claim that honor. I misread a comment you made during my cursory review of the talk page. The collateral damage is minimal, so it will go to my file 13 for small screw-ups. Sorry for confusing you too. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It's cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The MMA Barnstar
		I, LlamaAl, hereby award InedibleHulk the The MMA Barnstar for his/her valued contributions to WikiProject MMA. Awarded 17:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

SummerSlam (2010) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Slim Jim

Survivor Series (2000) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to 3DO

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Done and done, o robot overlord. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Money in the Bank (2011) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Skittles

Night of Champions (2008) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gillette

One Night Stand (2007) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gillette

Over the Edge (1999) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to MCI

WWE The Bash (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gillette

WrestleMania X8 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Skittles

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey

I dont think that removing 1 word one is very disruptive. I dont think that it matters it it says WWWF on it so why do you keep adding it. He won 1 title in it but the triple crown wasnt until the wwf so it really isnt needed especially since its already long (i.e WWE formerly WWWF, WWF, WWE). And by the way i archived the warnings and it doesnt matter anyways. BlackDragon 22:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The warning wasn't for the WWWF thing, it was for the World Wrestling Entertainment crap again. And "World Wide Wrestling Federation" is four words. As for this, I was pretty clear. We're dealing with champions from 1971 to 2012. It's silly to insist on ignoring one old name if we're listing the other two. I'd be OK with removing all of them or leaving all of them, but not singling out one. Why is leaving it such a problem for you? If it's the length, I could trim four actually unnecessary words from the article. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

US

The style guides are quite clear about this. Otherwise, we'll have a million links to the US article in our leads. For what purpose? And why to the whole-country article, and not to a more specific one? Please don't think that any reader is going to flick straight to the article on the US from the first sentence of an article on Bill Nye they've just chosen to open. It's not a loose browsing site; nor a dictionary (by the WP:PILLARS). And we assume a basic knowledge of the world, and of English, in our readers.

Every link dilutes the more valuable ones; that is widely accepted at en.WP. I pondered "mechanical engineer"; I might have unlinked it, but left it in as a more technical term—certainly compared with "writer" and "scientist". I hope that article on "science educator" is in a reasonable state. WWII seems a scattergun target ... can't you find a more specific sub-article for this context? It's not in the fields of Normandy. Tony (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have misread what you'd reverted. I was linking to Americans, not United States. As for click-through, I think it's very possible someone may come to this article (perhaps through a Wikilink) just to get the gist of who he is, not to read the whole thing. When they're done, who knows what they might want to learn about next? I often browse Wikipedia for general knowledge, not just cramming one subject. Wikilinks aren't just to explain terms for the good of the article they're in. I don't see how it hurts to connect articles like this. The more ways a reader can choose to go, the better. Those who wish to stick to one article can read blue words as easily as black. I've read your views on the linking Talk Page, so I doubt I'll be changing your mind on the matter.

If you'd elaborate on this "dilution" talk, I'd appreciate it. I'm lost there. As for WWII, it's used in a broad way here, so links to the general topic. If it mentioned more about his father's role, I could be more specific. But I can't just guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, what makes Seattle more linkworthy than Washington or Los Angeles? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Seattle is less well-known than NYC, Chicago, LA, Washington. It's a fine and sometimes awkward line, but a line needs to be drawn or we'll be linking every city on every occasion, which is annoying to readers, unprofessionally blue-scattered, and worst, dilutes the more useful links. We used to see "English language" linked everywhere. And "Wikipedia". That's an abuse of the wikilinking system. I'd have to think twice before linking Seattle if close-editing that article myself. The whole idea of linking is to direct readers selectively to items they are more likely to want to click on. In reality, very few readers do click on much at all. And not linking does not deny accessibility: there'a a search box. If someone is really that lazy that they can't type something in there, they can't be too keen to want to go to the destination. The dilution issue has been fully discussed (to death) years ago. Tony (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

As for laziness, some of us use shitty keypads (or in my case, a PS3 controller to point and click a shitty keypad. I was edit conflicted twice for slowness just now). User friendly is better, I think. As I was saying, a reader interested in Bill Nye may reasonably want to know about where he was raised, even if the topic is widely mentioned. Most people know Washington is where the US government works, but I'll bet few outsiders know much more than that. We can let these readers click a link (which are apparently somehow annoying to others) or we can make them click elsewhere, type some characters and click again (and again if they didn't enter the exact title or redirect), which is annoying. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Now I see you've relinked "United States". This is becoming very annoying. Please read the style guide. I'm sorry, but US is interpreted as a geographical entity, and we don't link it. Are we going to have a prolonged edit-war? I'll take you to ANI if so. Tony (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I relinked Americans. Bill Clinton is an American. Barack Obama is an African American. Alex Trebek is a Canadian American. Better fix those, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Taking it to ANI wouldn't be in your best interest as you could easily get hit by your own boomerang and blocked for a WP:3RR violation. Consider this as an only warning to both of you to stop the edit warring and start discussing this on the talk page before one or both of you gets blocked. Or take it to ANI and see how that works out for you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't resorted to ANI (or been blocked) once in my Wikipedia "career". I'm not starting now. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Mtking

Just to let you know I have proposed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that Mtking should be topic banned as he is ignoring the wishes for the MMA community. ScottMMA2 (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That probably wasn't the best way to go about it, but your intentions are good. I'll be more willing to help with this matter once my laptop arrives (should be this week). Typing with a PS3 controller is tediously slow and, in a busy discussion, causes edit conflicts which need to be rewritten manually (which often causes another edit conflict, etc.). And with discussions across many articles, instead of at the Wikiproject talk page, it's just that much worse. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Your recent editing history at Bill Nye shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Working on the discussion part. Seems like it should be a simple issue, but it takes all kinds, I guess. Thanks for the warning. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest self reverting at this point. You're already over WP:3RR and I just warned you about this last week. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you're looking to block me, I guess I'll revert. But this is such a clearcut issue, it makes me feel like I'm intentionally making Wikipedia less useful. Not thrilled about it, but it's not a huge deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not looking to block you. I simply want the edit warring and disruption to stop. However, there is no excuse on edit warring. WP:3RR is very clear and there are few exceptions to when it's okay to break it. Being "right" in a clearcut issue is not one of them. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the rules. Better to just let it slide. But in a perfect world, it would be Wikilinked. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Chris Cash

Nobody answer us in the wikiproject. Do you think that's a good idea move the article to Chri$ Ca$h?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I answered you there. First, I said I'd rather see it at "Chris Cash", but seeing how 90% of the sources use his silly dollar sign spelling, I'd be alright with "Chri$ Ca$h". Either is better than "Christopher Bauman". If you move it, I doubt anyone else will object. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

.I tried move to Chri$ Ca$s, but the page could not be moved. Do you know what happend?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure. Maybe the dollar signs aren't allowed in titles, for technical reasons. I'll try. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Chri$ Ca$h already exists as a redirect. We'll need an admin to delete that page first. I've added a Speedy Delete tag to the redirect. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, Thnaks you very much. I tought also that the dollar sings weren't allowes in titles. Thanks --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone deleted the Speedy Delete tag, saying it needs consensus. I've brought it up at the Wikiproject again. Shouldn't be a problem, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about it

I was just helping you take another chance at moving them to their ring names. The first time you did it, it messed up the table. Keith Okamoto (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed. Thanks for helping out! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Keith Okamoto (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

D3323 Message

I'm sorry about it, but I thought "Ghost Exterminators" is another name for "Ghostbusters". Really! — Preceding unsigned comment added by D3323 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Michael Polchlopek not Plotcheck

I made the appropriate corrections to the Michael Polchlopek and Michael Plotcheck.

The wrestler known as Bart Gunn, Brett Colt, and Mike Barton is actually named Michael Polchlopek. IMDB is as good if not a better source as Sherdog. I have listed some actual news sources that state his correct name. The correct needs to be changed back to how I fixed it. Thanks

I think the correction needs to be made

Here are additional references:

ESPN Mixed Martial Arts Page

http://espn.go.com/mma/fighter/_/id/2951365/mike-polchlopek

That one seems legit. Thought it's missing his other, more prominent, fight and lists his record as 0-0-0. So the accuracy could be questioned. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ebay Auction Selling his autograph http://www.ebay.com/itm/BART-GUNN-MIKE-POLCHLOPEK-Pro-Wrestler-Tag-Team-Signed-Card-COA-/230712513644?pt=US_Autographs&hash=item35b789946c

The signature here doesn't look like either name (or anything, really). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bleacher Report

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/299687-ikuhisa-minowa-the-top-ten-freakshows/page/6

http://prommanow.com/2009/05/09/ikuhisa-minowas-dirty-half-dozen/

Unreliable bloggish sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

11/5/2006 PRIDE Bushido 13 Ikuhisa Minowa vs. Mike Polchlopek

"Opponent’s Freak Show Factor A history in professional wrestling is always a welcome ingredient in a freak show fight. Although wrestling fans may not remember then name Mike Polchlopek, they will surely be familiar with his stage name Bart Gunn."

In addition to the normal body slams and steel chair shots, Polchlopek also took first place in the WWF’s “Brawl for All” shoot tournament. The tournament, which was designed to play off the mid nineties popularity of toughman contest, was a hodgepodge of wrestling and boxing."

Hollywood News Site http://www.hollywoodishere.com/celeb/93633/

http://www.screened.com/mike-polchlopek/14-394008/

MMA Wiki http://mixedmartialarts.wikia.com/wiki/Mike_Polchlopek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techsupportdude (talk • contribs) 20:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

All unreliable, user-submitted sites. The HollywoodIsHere one copied and pasted from the Wikipedia article, even including the footnote.

You may have something with the ESPN article. Propose the move at the talk page (or Wikiproject), and see what kind of consensus it gets. But don't just move it back. Things like this require discussion. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Response: How is the Bleacher Report not a reliable source? Do you not find the fact that there is an ebay auction with his correct name out there in reference to Bart Gunn compelling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techsupportdude (talk • contribs) 21:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

See the answer I gave someone else, in the "Bleacher Report" section above. Anyone can write anything on eBay. The signature itself doesn't help one way or the other. It looks like "Boats C" to me. How's this for you? Pretty clear there. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Also keep in mind, MMA fighters are required by law to give their correct name in an MMA license application. So, if he fought as "Plotcheck" and wasn't fined or suspended, it's a safe bet that's his name. That link is Nevada law, but this is true for any regulated MMA. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Response The article you listed is in error: Same Fight from Tapology: http://www.tapology.com/fightcenter/fighters/wesley-correira-cabbage

Anytime you see a "Contribute" button on a site, it's not reliable. I could click the button if I wanted and say he knocked out Robocop. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

MMA Fighter listing on a Canadian site: http://www.sportsnet.ca/mma/fighters/

The fight records here are clearly inaccurate. The names may very well also be. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

ok - how about this book (see page 42) listed as a notible person in from Titusville: http://www.scribd.com/doc/75079852/Brevard-County-Florida

Again, this is a site anyone can edit to say anything. This is clearly gathered from Wikipedia. Check out Brevard County, Florida. I could say Robocop lives there. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

A German wrestling Site: http://www.cagematch.de/?id=2&nr=654&view=awards

WWE Videos for Sale:

WWF IN Your House 8 - List starring Michael Polchlopek (Bart Gunn and Billy Gunn are wrestling) http://www.amazon.com/WWF-Your-House-8-VHS/dp/B00004CSQN/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1353103060&sr=1-2&keywords=Michael Polchlopek

Wrestle Mania 11 (Starring Michael Polchlopek (Bart Gunn), Monty Sopp (Billy Gunn) http://www.filmlinks4u.net/2011/05/wrestlemania-xi-1995.html

I would think WWE would know how to spell his name since they gave him a pay check from several years....and they have his real name in the credits of the VCRs and DVDs he is in.

Oh and by the way - Mike fought Cabbage in Hawaii not Nevada....but I know he never wrestled or fought under the name of Plotcheck. people just continue someone else's bad spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techsupportdude (talk • contribs) 23:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh on a side note......ESPN most likely does not list the fight at Rumble for him because it is generally consider non-legit and is considered a training ground to the bigs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techsupportdude (talk • contribs) 23:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but that's ridiculous. This was the main event of a pro show. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If you think those sources are good enough (I don't, aside from maybe Cagematch), propose a page move on the talk page or Wrestling Wikiproject. Better to hear from other editors than just me. But I'll point out that WWE shows never list acting credits. Anything you see on other sites is probably gathered from Wikipedia or IMDB. And yes, that's Nevada rules, but these are the basis for most other state regulations. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Rumble on the Rock is considered the "minor leagues" of the MMA world. (A baseball player that plays in AAA ball - does not carry his stats forward to the majors if he gets called up.) Regardless - I believe that I am done with this topic - obviously you are not interested in quality control or providing an accurate product. If an error is pointed out and there is conflicting information out there, I would go to a more knowledgeable source or "higher source" - like maybe someone in the business that can answer the question. Since on this particular subject.....I should know what I am talking about since I know him and you do not want to improve your product - we have to go with the assumption that there are many many more errors all over Wiki that are being ignored because someone does not want to take the time to get accurate information. BTW.....I was only going to point out the name was wrong - but since you are not planning on fixing any of it, you should go back and verify many of the other more specific items (because there are several other errors). I will note that; while the obituary that you removed from the topic was actually factual - I do not believe that it was necessary information to know about Mike and it was actually more respectful to the family to leave it out (but that is not why you left it out). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techsupportdude (talk • contribs) 02:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It's minor league, but it's still professional (as opposed to amateur, where the rounds are shorter, nobody gets paid and it doesn't affect the record). Sherdog keeps track of fights better than any site, and list amateur fights in a separate section. Plotcheck has no amateur fights, and two pro fights.

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia relays what is verifiable, according to reliable sources. In some cases, this is different from what is actually true and that's just how it goes. I'm not saying this is one of those cases, but it might be. As the current sources point toward "Plotcheck", the onus is on you to find this "higher source" for "Polchlopek", not anyone else. If there are any other errors in this (or another) article, feel free to correct them, but according to those policies I linked above. I can't guess at which errors you mean.

There is no rule here about removing sourced material that may upset people, but there are many rules against potential defamation. By calling him "Michal Polchlopek", we'd be implying he lied on his MMA licence application.

Anyway, like I said, if you want it moved, get WP:CONSENSUS. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is something additional to consider:

The move that was done on 4/28/12 was not a correct move. The wrestler/MMA fighter known as Bart Gunn and Mike Barton is Michael Polchlopek. Clearly all this pictures are the same person - Michael Polchlopek NOT Plotcheck

Below are examples over the years to high school forward

High School Yearbook Pictures

Class of 1981 Titusville High School Yearbook: http://www.classmates.com/yearbooks/Titusville-High-School/165544?page=160

Class of 1981 Titusville High School Yearbook: http://www.classmates.com/yearbooks/Titusville-High-School/165544?page=96

Class of 1981 Titusville High School Yearbook (wrestling team): http://www.classmates.com/yearbooks/Titusville-High-School/165544?page=48

These say I have to register to see the pictures, and I won't. But in the "People indexed here", there's no Polchlopek or Plotcheck. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

IWF (International Wrestling Federation):

http://images-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org/10/2/5/7/34136782863731955.jpg

WWE

http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr160/fishbulb-suplex/Wrestlers/Tag Teams/Smoking Gunns/Smoking_Gunns_02.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Smoking_Bart_Gunn_in_Birmingham.jpg/220px-Smoking_Bart_Gunn_in_Birmingham.jpg

MMA

http://www.tapology.com/system/letterbox_images/1395/default/Plotcheck-Mike-PrideB13-1.jpg?1276123548

Current

http://www.flickr.com/photos/woodmo/3475450474/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techsupportdude (talk • contribs) 03:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:SYNTHESIS. It can explain why this doesn't work quicker than I can. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

OK - Here are the first ones that I cited from classmates.com (that you did not want to log in to see) - If you look at these and pictures that have been published by other reliable sources - they are obviously the same person. I am sure he did not lie on his MMA license.....I am quite sure that the people at sherdog made a mistake in the spelling (it happens).

All of these are from Classmates.com call Tearbook section(I believe a trusted source since they are actual pages from the yearbook from his last year there). http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/o722/Reaper_House/Mike2-1.jpg http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/o722/Reaper_House/mike4.jpg http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/o722/Reaper_House/mike3-1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techsupportdude (talk • contribs) 15:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing new to say about these. Still synthesis. Please use the article's talk page instead of mine for any further discussion or links. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santino Marella, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Umaga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Why does this bot call itself "we"? Creepy. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

My user name

Without going into too much detail, Vjm are my initials, l stands for loves and the rest are the initials of a former girlfriend.

I picked this name out years ago, and I just never bothered changing it.

Vjmlhds 04:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dwayne Johnson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Big Show (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Dwayne Johnson

The new format that you inserted into his wrestling career is not right.

Why? Because it does not follow how the format normally goes. While the format normally puts things simply as they are and should be: how it happened and the order that it happened. This new format makes it all timelinic as in:

Nov 7th - the rock had a dog

Nov 8th - his dog died.

Whereas what it should be is this: The Rock had a dog who would end up dying the next day. This format is better, although less succinct, connected enough to make sense. If your method were to be proper, then it would be on all superstar pages, not just DJs. --Schmeater (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

First, I still don't know what you're talking about. Can you give some actual examples from the article? Your theoretical dog story is wordy. Nobody ever needs to say "who would end up dying" when they can say "who died". From the lead of Wikipedia's Manual of Style: "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." In other words, less succinct isn't best. Most of my copyediting is just removing needless words. If there's a specific part that seems "timelinic", just fix that. Don't revert everything. You restore a lot of poor writing that way.

And yes, a LOT of wrestler articles are poorly written, by high school English standards. It doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Hope you understand. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

In which case it should just be like this. "The next night att The Rock Appreciation Night, the Rock would be attacked by Bill Goldberg. Goldberg would defeat the Rock at Backlash."

Better, but you're still misusing "would". Writing in past tense, it should be "The Rock was attacked" and "Goldberg defeated The Rock". The Rock is a proper noun, so "The" is capitalized. "The Rock Appreciation Night" should be in quotes, and "at" has a typo. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	InedibleHulk, this is for being beary ingenious in creating Terrible Ted! Starship.paint (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Not a fan of the whole barnstar thing, but I appreciate the thought. And the pun. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA Event Notability

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. I've glanced over it and I don't think there's anything I can add that hasn't already been said (or that I haven't said in similar discussions). I'd only help make it longer, more scattered and harder to read. I'd add a simple support, but I get the feeling that would just spawn an over-Wikilinked paragraph about how consensus isn't a vote. If I give a reason, I'll get the same paragraph, with different Wikilinks. Somewhere along the line, I'd have to re-re-reiterate (like most of us have) that a 12-fight MMA event isn't like one hockey game. I wish the MMA Project the best in resolving the clusterfuck (per WP:COMMONNAME) this time around, but I doubt it.

On the bright side, the lack of MMA info on Wikipedia may remind surfers that there's still an entire Internet outside of Wikipedia (much of it devoted to everything anyone needs to know about every aspect of MMA). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Your recent editing history at Fox News Channel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Reverting you once doesn't mean I'm in an edit war. If you revert me, though, that is 3RR. Like the other editor who reverted you said, bring it to the talk page. You may have a point we're not seeing. And sign your posts. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Glossary of professional wrestling terms

Something tells me that users will continue to add terms which have their own articles to the list. In their eyes, those terms are obviously "missing", but they're not likely to dig deeply enough to realize why they are missing. I would suggest a "See also" section containing links to those articles. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 13:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, something tells me that, too. A compromise like you suggest is probably in order. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, "excursion" appears in a lot of articles about Japanese wrestlers. I've also seen it used outside of Wikipedia in describing same. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 16:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Miz Slam

I read WP:Synthesis, and while I understand where you're coming from, it really doesn't apply here.

The big bugaboo was always whether or not WWE considered the U.S. title Slam eligible, and the reference I found just does that.

The article states that the WWE, Intercontinental, United States, and Tag Team titles count as a Grand Slam.

It clearly pointed out that Miz needed the I-C title to get there, and once he won it, he did.

The hang up was always about the combination of titles needed to get the Slam.

The source states that the WWE-IC-US-Tag combo counts for a Slam.

I don't see how it would differentiate about who got it, all it states is that that combo counts.

Vjmlhds 00:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not as clear-cut as some synthesis cases. But we'd still be combining Point A (The Miz is recognized as a Grand Slam champion because of his US Title reign) with Point B (other wrestlers have won the same titles) to synthesize Point C (all wrestlers who have won the titles are Grand Slam champions). The source doesn't outright state that the WWE-IC-US-Tag combo counts, but strongly implies it. Because of the strength of the implication, I wouldn't feel right opposing it. But it seems technically improper, so I can't support it. I'll just put on my observer hat and let you and the other editors work it out. Whatever consensus is reached will be fine by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rick Saccone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been mixing up my [s and {s lately. Thanks for reminding me I'm human, rob't. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

WCW Title

Hi, Hulk.It's me. Can you help me with the WCW Title? You added sources saying that the WCW Championship was desactivated and Jericho was the final champion. I tried to explain to the user, but he still adding the Unified championship regins as WCW Regins ecause Inoki won the title but his title regin doesn't appear in WWE.com or Punk and Cena as co-champions is an idea from Wikipedia (but WWE.com says that Punk and Cena were champions at the same time). The user don't stop, so I think that we have to talk with him or ask for banned him. Can you help me? I'm from Spain and I make mistakes when I write (I try to write correctly, I promise) and I prefer that a user explain the fact very well. Thanks for your time. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I and another editor have explained things to him. I just re-explained. Not sure how I can be much clearer about the issue. The sources say one thing, he seems to think the DVDs say another. If he keeps up with the disruptions, I'll give him his official warning. Should be enough. Your English is pretty good, by the way. But I've noticed you spell "reign" wrong a lot. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

.Really? Maybe because in spanish, I say REInado. OK, I'll fix it. Thanks for the help me. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

sorry man for anoying you, but the boss did it again. Now he posted a image from a wwe magacine that says "bischoff resurrected the wcw championship and renamed it whc". Also, he uploaded a video to youtube and used it a s a soucre. Again, I dont think so. Wwe.com says that wcw and whc are two different titles and in the wwe bios, you'll never see taker, hhh and lesnar as wcw. Also, wwe magacine says that bischoff resurrected the championship, but it neber says that the title was active in the undisputed period. Can you help me again?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. You're not annoying me, but this guy is starting to. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that this is like the Miz as Grand Slam. He give us commentaries about Bischoff and Ross saying that the title represents both companies, both brands, that "you'll recognices this championship". Everything it's metaphorical. We need a source saying that the championship was active since 1991 until 2002 and Lesnar was the last champion and we haven't, because all the sources say that Jericho was the final champion. Also, WWE.com says that Taker, HHH and Lesnar (only 3 wrestlers who didn't won the WCW Title before the unification) never won the WCW championship, so it was dead. I'm trying to explain this to Boss, but he don't lissen. Maybe we have to upload a video to youtube (joking) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we've explained it well enough for any reasonable person to understand, and then some. If he wants to ignore the evidence on talk pages, there's nothing we can do. But he's been warned about disruptive edits and knows consensus is completely against his idea. So I think he'll give that a rest, at least. Nothing wrong with bringing up new ideas on Wiki, even seemingly bad ones. But we all have to be able to eventually admit we're wrong, if we are. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Legends Template

Thx there. Already post'd explainin'. AARDJ (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Testing signature.

Nothing to see here, folks. 19:44, 12 02 2013 (UTC)

Much better. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:04, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Though (as Redrose pointed out) your signature really should use the standard date-time format. One reason: editors often add comments out of sequence, and it is harder to detect that when you have to parse a non-standard format. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree if I was using only numbers. 2-12 could look like December 2. But February 12 and 12 February shouldn't confuse humans, only perhaps bots and scripts. Half of the reason I did this was because the standard format here is backwards to the standard format I see in my non-Wikipedia life. If there's evidence I'm hurting something, I'll go back to backwards and black. For now, I appreciate your concern, but will keep it as is. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm just curious to know why you're linking the date in your signature... -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm a fan of Wikilinks and "On this date in..." trivia. Sort of using the two to give a non-invasive invitation for anybody reading a comment to learn about something they may have never realized existed. Did you know it's the 100th day of the year today, and would have been Stefan Heym's 100th birthday? More importantly, do you dislike the linking? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You should not wikilink dates in your signature. You may not realise that the wiki software automatically converts dates and times in signatures based on timezones and the current date, but it doesn't work when the dates are wikilinked, which makes it hard to interpret the timing of posts. For example, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Changing_.22Religion_.3D_none.22_to_.22Religion_.3D_Atheist.22_on_BLP_infoboxes, the timestamps on posts all made within minutes of each other appear as follows:

--Guy Macon (talk) 7:12 pm, Today (UTC 10)

Martinvl (talk) 7:17 pm, Today (UTC 10)

-- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 7:25 pm, Today (UTC 10)

—sroc (talk) 7:36 pm, Today (UTC 10)

InedibleHulk (talk) 09:43, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

In order to work out when you made your post, I need to remember today's date (i.e., does "July 17, 2013" mean "Today"?) and calculate the time difference (i.e., 09:43 UTC = 7:43pm UTC 10). So this creates more work for others trying to interpret your comments (and the order in which various posts are made) just because you like trivia. —sroc (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, it also forced your chosen date format, disregarding the reader's preferences. For example, my settings show dates in (the more logical) DMY format, but your signature shows in MDY format. —sroc (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize it converted. I've never seen a timestamp in anything other than UTC, myself. The page you refer to looks fine, on my screen. Is this an optional thing you've chosen? If not, I may have to consider changing.

The preference thing is a preference thing. You like it one way, I like it the other. But I'll check that out. If I can have the dates show up the way I like them, without requiring Javascript, that's half the problem solved. Only the Wikilinking to worry about. Depending how the RfC on past tense in DOYs plays out, I may decide to stop associating with the articles.

I appreciate your concerns, but need a bit of time to consider it. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I changed my date and time preferences, but everything still looks how it did. Does it only kick in for future posts? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The gadget is a feature in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets: "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time." See Wikipedia:Comments in Local Time.

Note that the gadget also calculates the number of days since the timestamp (e.g., "1:01 am, 19 February 2013, Tuesday (4 months, 28 days ago) (UTC 11)"); your signature loses that functionality.

Have you considered letting the date appear in standard format (so that it respects the reader's settings) and adding an additional link to the relevant date article (e.g., clickable a clock icon)? —sroc (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

That might be a workable compromise. Do you have any idea how I might go about it? I've no experience with icons, but if it's something like piping a text link, I could manage. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not all that familiar with toying with the signature. Maybe instead of an icon it could be like this:

InedibleHulk (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC) ⁠today's trivia/2013 trivia⁠

Just a thought. —sroc (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, users can also use cascading style sheets (CSS) to customise the appearance of Wikipedia (see Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering and Help:User style). For example, I have added a line to my custom CSS for the skin I'm using so that the date/time stamps appear in a smaller font size and in grey. It doesn't work with your signature though; apparently the wikilinking means the software doesn't recognise it as a datestamp and therefore won't format it as such. —sroc (talk) 09:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You might find this helpful, too: Wikipedia:Signatures. —sroc (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Try putting this as your signature:

[[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) [[{{subst:date||mdy}}|🕓]][[{{subst:YEAR|{{date}}}}|📅]]

That should produce:

InedibleHulk (talk) 🕓📅

That should be followed by the datestamp which should be automatically inserted. Note that the above uses Unicode symbols, since images are not permitted in signatures. —sroc (💬) 10:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I like the look of that first one. I'll tinker with it to see if I can get the auto-date in place of the "July 17". Don't imagine it should be tricky. Could be the compromise we're looking for.

Still not noticing any change from switching my date preference to M-D-Y.

The CSS thing doesn't turn my crank. I assume I'd need Javascript, and I avoid that when I can. Not sure if I should be seeing empty rectangles in your example, but I do. Quite unattractive.

Thanks for the help. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Four tildes instead of three may take some getting used to, and a bit more tinkering is in order, but how's this? InedibleHulk (talk) Today's Special/Story of the Year 18:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's no good. Look at all the mumbo-jumbo it leaves on the edit page. There's a solution somewhere, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

That first attempt worked on my end — the date format followed the preferences in my CSS perfectly — but the code it out of control, I agree.

Not sure why the unicode characters showed up as rectangles. Do you see a little speech bubble for the "talk" link next to my name in my signature, or does that not show up for you either? —sroc 💬 00:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

How have you been inserting the date in your timestamps anyway? Do you type it in manually every time?! I don't understand why your attempt to replicate the signature in the format I suggested comes out with all this additional code that wasn't in my version! —sroc 💬 00:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Kassius Ohno

So he couldn't be there just to watch the show? If Evan Bourne be backstage at Raw w/ his bronken foot automatically he won't be inactive anymore? AARDJ (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You've got a point. Still, we'll need a source that says he's out, can't just come to conclusions based on circumstances. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Developmental championships

Hey, friend, u can help me here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling#NXT.27s_Champ_and_Tag_Champs AARDJ (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Shield and Bo still in NXT

I saw you removed the NXT profile links of Bo Dallas and the Shield, I was wondering why remove their profile links when they are still listed on the NXT Wrestling website? Can I move the profiles next to their names like their WWE.com profile links? Keith Okamoto (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the purpose they were serving. If you'd like to re-add them, go for it, but leave some sort of note in the Notes column, like "Still occasionally wrestles for NXT" or something. Just so readers have an idea of what the citation is doing there, you know? Sources need info, even more than info needs sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Added the "Also competes in NXT Wrestling" note to Bo and Shield. Keith Okamoto (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. I just changed "competes" to "wrestles", since we're talking about the actual guys and not their characters. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

WWE '14

You might be interested in this discussion here. Have a great day. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 01:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

2012 Aurora shooting

Sorry about the revert, it was clear after reading the citation here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

All good. Mistakes happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Glossary of professional wrestling terms redux

Cheap heat examples? Evidently, no one understands how huge it was when Roddy Piper played "La Cucaracha" on the bagpipes at the Olympic Auditorium. Probably because there's questions of whether the Lebell tape library still exists, therefore few modern fans have heard of or seen it. To put it in proper perspective, just about any Southern California wrestling audience from the 1970s onward would, to the uninitiated, more closely resemble a casting call for extras for a Robert Rodriguez film. Piper said that the chairs were bolted to the floor, but that didn't prevent the ring from being full of chairs before the whole thing was over.

Now, I noticed that you responded to my comments about the glossary, but I never got back to you. I dunno if you were active a few years ago when I was arguing with some of the regulars about sourcing. I pointed out that EVERY wrestling book I've come across contains source material relevant to this article. It would take only a small stack of books to make this an FL. If it weren't for AGF, I would assume that I was dealing with a group of people incapable of finding their local library or bookstore, based upon some of the attitudes I've seen on here. It's little talked about, but there's obviously an active "No URL = no verifiability" contingent on Wikipedia, which means discarding entire categories of sources out of hand. That's the only reasonable explanation for why all this is so, besides the extra work involved, I guess.

I mentioned "excursion", and you indicated that you didn't follow. In puroresu, an excursion refers to a young boy who has gone through training and had their debut match. After a period of time in the undercard, the young boy will spend a matter of months or years overseas. Japan takes a dim view towards illicit substances, so it does make sense when Matthew Randazzo V contends, as he does in Ring of Hell, that this is as much about a wrestler getting access to the juice as it is about them learning different styles of wrestling.

Additionally, two terms related to each other would be "eraser" and "pencil". I've heard this a number a times from wrestlers, describing either the booking process or their particular spot within a program. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 02:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Not completely sure what you're getting at. Yes, Piper was a heat magnet, and yes, sources can be offline. Easier to verify online ones, but no rule against books. But I don't think any wrestler-specific examples are needed or prudent here. Picking one or two from dozens seems non-neutral, and for someone who hasn't seen the example, it doesn't help much. Defining the term in plain English is sufficient. If we were freer to use video clips as references, examples could be useful. But copyright rules are what they are.

Since you first mentioned it, I've learned what "excursion" means. I'd have no problem if you wanted to add that to the list. Perhaps pencil and eraser, too. Not quite sure what those mean, but that probably means others also don't, so a glossary would be a good place to explain them. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Help

Hi, Hulk. How are you? I need some help. I'm near to a war edit with User:DJ8946 about The Funkadactyls. I redirect the article to Brodus Clay's article, because the team had two weekly matches and it's more notable due to be the valet of Clay more than a pro wrestling tag team. I explained to the creator, Miss X-Factor, but this user insist to rever my editions and create an article only because "they are going to wrestle in WM, so it's a notbale tag team". I'm near to war edit and I need somebody who help us and say who is wrong and who is wright, because I think that he don't know what a notable article is and I don't want to report him as vandal. Thanks --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I see Static has agreed with your redirect, and I also agree, having looked at the previous version. Most of that article was about their valet work, not their wrestling. Two valets doesn't equal a tag team, even if they hang out together and occasionally wrestle. Given the depth of their roster, we could likely pick any two Divas at random, and they'd have had more throw-together tag matches than these girls. Natalya and Layla, for instance, have 30 matches together, to The Funkadactyls' twelve (not all on TV). Maryse and Alicia Fox, 106. There's a bit more to notability than numbers of matches, but the sources don't seem to show it, in this case. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

thanks. Now, the situation is worst. An editor has blocked the page until the cominuty says if are notable or not. People syas that our explications aren't working, so is better that other users talk by me. Sorry for anoying you again, but can you, or other user, explain to the rookie user and the veteran user the thing and rules that make a tag team notable. Thanks--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I can try. Maybe you should mention it at the Wikiproject page. More editors watching there than here (I hope). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I talk to you because I think that, with Ribbon and Feedback, are the best editors of the Project. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You do a hell of a lot, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit

I removed the thing from Gorilla Monsoon's page because i felt it was disrespectful and wasn't important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckbruinfan (talk • contribs) 22:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I and at least two other editors feel it is important, since it is a record-setting number of awards from one of the most famous wrestling publications. It would be disrespectful to say he deserves the award (I think he was the best WWF has had, personally). But we're not doing that. We're simply relaying what WON voters voted and attributing it to them. If you can find and would like to add some other award or praise to balance the line out, that'd be fine. As long as it's verifiable. That's the thing about Wikipedia; it couldn't care less whether the info is "positive" or "negative". As long as it's sourced and not given undue weight. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

WWE 2K14

Maybe now that Stephanie McMahon herself has referred to the game as WWE 2K14, you will agree to change it to its proper name? CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!}

Maybe, but probably not. People use all sorts of abbreviations and slang on Twitter. Is The Rock's "proper" name @TheRock? Stephanie McMahon said so. The official website of the game's developers trumps a Tweet from someone who's only loosely connected. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Loosely? You mean second in command of the company the game represents. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 05:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Loosely. WWE isn't directly in charge of development, production or sales. They probably have a fair bit of say, but mainly they just license out the trademarks. In any case, Stephanie McMahon is in charge of writing for TV, not the merchandise. That's this Collins guy. If you can quote him calling the game one thing or another, that'd be legit. But reading too much into this Tweet isn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

WP Mixed Martial Arts in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Mixed Martial Arts for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No thanks, but have a good day yourself. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

User:AmericanDad86

This user has just attacked us on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. I've just requested for a block on him and I'm hoping for some action against him.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably a good move. Doesn't seem like the kind of guy we can reason with, at least not at the moment. A 24-hour cooldown seems appropriate. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You can help me by adding a request to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Keith Okamoto (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. I'll see how this goes for a bit longer, first. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, I'd first like to express my sincere thanks to you for showing at least a degree of understanding and ability to compromise which is unfortunately far more than I can say for the likes of Keith. So yea, thank you for showing that skill and thank you as well for being your own person and not allowing this user to continue using you as a pawn in his little unsuccessful game: [2]. Anyways, while I'm keenly favorable to your suggestions that this information could be added to the "WrestleMania 29" article, I still maintain that it also has a place in the WWE Raw article. After all, the information is directly about "WWE Raw" and about it in such a way in which it's getting rave reviews as never before. I'm not sure how aware you are with the Internet Wrestling Community, but it's an extreme rarity in the IWC when all the critics are praising a "WWE Raw" episode and labeling it as the best ever with one of the strongest crowds ever. When you have a bunch of sites like this [3] that read the following, it most certainly has a place in the article:

Throughout the night, WWE fans in attendance at the Izod Centre sang and chanted, helping to create one of the most memorable editions of the history of WWE Raw. And it would appear that the lively atmosphere in the building caused problems for a certain Randy Orton. Orton's promo - and match - with Sheamus was largely ignored by the fans, who were too busy chanting to pay attention to what was happening in the ring.

That said, I strongly feel it has a key place in the "WWE Raw" article as a widely acclaimed episode, widely held to be the most unique in history. You've continually made references of "undue weight" about my three very small paragraphs, but if you look at the Wikipedia policy that you've presented me with on the matter, it really doesn't outline any specifics as to what is and is not undue weight. So at the end of the day, this is all your own personal opinion. I myself feel that it really isn't in excess especially when compared to the amounts of material on other topics within this article, such as the scores of material on a "switch to HD." Besides that, you yourself have admitted point-blankly to disregarding Wikipedia policies in many cases, so I'm unsure why you're allowing Keith to hold me to these highly unreasonable standards especially when I've sourced my material.

All that said, as you've proven yourself to be a respectable and reasoning editor, I'd like to offer up the suggestion of significantly trimming down my material in respect to your wishes and then adding it into the "WWE Raw" article. Maybe I could put an abridged version together and pass it along to you for your consideration; we could see if we agree on it and go from there. How does that strike you?! Let me know! =) AmericanDad86 (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless you want to abridge it to one line, and fit it in the table with the rest, it strikes me about as well as it did the first time. This episode doesn't have a title like the rest of the "Special Episodes", so it would look slightly out of place, but there are numerous sources indicating it was something "special". Not sure that would be best, but sure better than its own section. That, more than length of text, gives it undue weight. This show has run for over 20 years, and we don't have a section for a single one of the other 1,036 episodes. Many of those were also praised by journalists and fans. The one-hour Cena vs Michaels RAW, "This is Your Life" with Mankind and Rock and Edge and Lita's Live Sex Celebration, to name just a few.

It seems a case of recentism, where the show is fresh in your mind and fresh on the news feed. You have to step back and look at the bigger picture. Which is why I suggested when I first removed it to wait a year or at least a few months, to see what kind of significance remains. Calling it "one of the most memorable" a day or two later isn't untrue, but it's also not surprising. Most people will likely remember the April 15 RAW on the 17th, too. Give it time, and if you feel the same later (at least a week or two), we'll talk again. Your info is in the edit history forever, it can be easily found if needed.

And again, lay off the conspiracy babble. You sound paranoid and bitter, which can turn a lot of people off of listening to you, who might otherwise help. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems someone created an Aftermath section in WrestleMania 29 shortly after I suggested it to you. But it's poorly written and completely unsourced. You can still help. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. Where did I mention of "conspiracy" at all in my texts? I referred to you as a "respectable" and "reasoning" editor actually--which was generous on my part considering your own admission on my talkpage to flouting Wikipedia policies all the time, while unreasonably holding me to the policies in accordance with your own subjective opinions--and rather than taking these compliments like an appreciative adult, you've chosen to respond like an ungrateful child and engage in name-calling. It really is unbecoming of you. Anyways, I don't see what "recentism" has to do with anything. All the other RAW tributes, like the very recent Paul Bearer one which isn't sourced, were all incorporated at the time of their materializing. While you personally may disagree with the notability of the RAW episode in question, it really doesn't change the fact that a majority of mainstream websites and wrestling critics have labeled it as notable and one of the best ever. Anyways, just to avoid further contentiousness on the matter, I've shortened down the material and have come up with an abridged version as follows:

You didn't use that exact word, but it's been a running theme. And it does make you sound paranoid and bitter. That's not name-calling, it's an observation of your words. I don't disagree with the notability of the episode. It's been praised in reliable sources, sure. But hundreds have been. None get their own section. Your sources say it was "one of" the best/most memorable/whatever. Doesn't that indicate there are others we're ignoring in favour of the most recent? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

@ "doesn't that indicate there are others we're ignoring in favor of the most recent?" Perhaps, but I do follow the Internet Wrestling Community fairly closely and can attest to the fact that at least most of the time, the wrestling websites and critics are caviling and carping away at the WWE and what they haven't done right. They have a reputation of being hypercritical towards the WWE product, impossible to please, and nagging especially in regards to how everything but the attitude era has been trash, etc. I mean, one simple Google search will give you numerous results: [4]. I guess that's why these rave reviews caught my eye. For once, no wrestling websites (or at least none of the many I've come across) were being critics. As you suggested, however, there are probably others that have been treated with just as much notability, but I'm thinking they're probably needles in a haystack considering the trend.AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

According to The Baltimore Sun and many other wrestling reviews and critics, the April 8, 2013 edition of Monday Night Raw, following WrestleMania 29, was one of wrestling's greatest broadcasts and WWE's most impressive Raw's. The episode has been characterized as having the most animated and dynamic audience atmospheres in World Wrestling Entertainment history.

That's closer to good, but if you're still thinking of making a distinct section for it, it's still wrong.InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That's reasonable enough. But just to make clear, I wasn't intending on giving this its own section; it was meant as an acclaim section for critically acclaimed episodes. At the end of the day, however, I think your dismissal of my acclaim section may have been for the best. I can see other editors coming in and adding their own personal ideas of the best RAW ever without any regard for widely held opinions and sources to back them up. In retrospect, I don't think it would have turned out too well. Anyways, where do you think it should go in the article?! I guess that's the next order of business.AmericanDad86 (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

If anywhere, it should go in the table of special episodes, in chronological order. A line or two saying a lot of people enjoyed the crowd. Or whatever else was special. Then at least five citations, to establish we're not just talking about one (or four) guy's opinion. Remember, there's more burden to establish an episode as "special" when it wasn't marketed as a special episode. If you'd like to try that, I won't object. But I won't defend it, either, if others object. Not because we think as a hive, just because it's still not that great of an idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's better than nothing I suppose. I'll add abridged version to the section in question as per this discussion with the four references as requested.AmericanDad86 (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It was five. Anyway, it's looking better than it did. But WhatCulture.com doesn't seem to be a reliable source. User-contributed, like Bleacher Report or Forbes. Not saying amateurs are always wrong, but Wikipedia frowns on them. Can you find at least two other professional sources? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, really?! I didn't know that about WhatCulture.com. Sure thing.AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, I'm not sure if you were feeling bored or whatever, but days after this editing dispute was over, we'd agreed upon an edit as shown above, and nobody had even been edit warring anymore, you decided to return to the article and the corresponding talkpage with this mess, talking about you "scolding" somebody [5], [6], [7],[8]. Now I don't know who or what you take me for but you watch how you talk to me. Got that?! I don't know how you're used to acting in your everyday life, but you do not "scold" me? I'm not your child and if you think you're going to sit at your computer and treat me like one, you've got another thing coming. You've been carping and caviling about an sourced edit I made to that article, whining about how it doesn't comply to your personal opinion of appropriate length, while in the same breath talking about how you flout and neglect wikipedia policies all the time as a defense to my pointing out that the article has all sorts of issues that don't comply to wikipedia policy (as shown here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AmericanDad86&diff=549954907&oldid=549936642). I notice you have a very lot of speedy deletion notices on your article which probably wouldn't be the case if you weren't admittedly flouting Wikipedia policies. I then tried to swallow my pride and not complain about this heavily unsourced article and even customize my edit to your desires, allowing you to pull this bogus double standard when I really didn't want to because the articles a unsourced mess. But now you went ahead and blew that. As I should have done in the first place, I've placed citation tags on the article as very little of it is sourced. And just because you disregard wikipedia policies doesn't mean it doesn't get sourced. Also, stop coming to me asking me to come help you edit other wrestling articles like WrestleMania 29 when your behavior is completely obnoxious just editing one article with you. I'm not going anywhere near the WrestleMania 29 article. Goodbye! AmericanDad86 (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

When you say "per consensus on talk page", it seems like there was some agreement on the article's talk page. Yes, if somebody followed the link, they'd see it wasn't so, but at a glance, it's misleading. If you feel only children are scolded, I can't help that. As far as your "sourced edit", you said things like this was the greatest broadcast in wrestling history, and even better than WrestleMania, which weren't in either source. Instead of getting bitchy, read up on basic policies, like WP:V and WP:RS. It's not rocket science and it's not personal. I wasn't asking for help with WrestleMania 29, I was giving you a chance to be useful and feel like your work was worth something. If you don't want that, I don't mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, I won't be acknowledging the points you made above as you've referred to me with profanity. So you can rewrite all of that over again until you learn how to address me appropriately. Again, learn how to talk to me. Again, I don't know who or what you take me for but I don't take your cheek. Btw, you've now engaged in a slew of behaviors worthy of administrator attention: You've referred to me with profanity above (as shown here with [9]); you've rekindled a previously resolved edit war several days later with this childish incivility about how to not use "as per" but "per" and how you're "scolding" me and how I'm "misleading" (as shown here [10]); you've been nonstop carping about my "not following Wikipedia policy" (on basis of what you think is appropriate length) while you've admittedly been flouting Wikipedia policies (as shown here [11])and instating inappropriate Youtube sources with copyright issues into the article thinking I won't catch this. Your behavior is entirely out of line, you know it, and you don't know how to talk to me so communications between you and I on this matter are over. And the next form of disrespect I receive from you, see that I don't start removing the huge chunks of this article that are unsourced which I should be doing any way. You're lucky I haven't gone ahead and removed half of this article as very little of it is sourced, considering you yourself are trying to remove material on basis that "it is not properly sourced." The hypocrite antics I'm no longer putting up with. Following your next form of disrespect, I'm trimming.AmericanDad86 (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear highly fucking valued contributor (better?), there is no policy against profanity here, just against incivility. If I use a word like "bitchy" (I assume that's what you mean) to describe your comments, it's because it's the best word for the job. If I were to call you a bitch (which I'm not), it'd be different. You've actually violated that policy numerous times, but I don't mind. Just telling you it would counterproductive to bug an admin about it.

The YouTube link was used in accordance with WP:NFCC, I think, but yeah, I could have done that more properly. Fair use isn't a crime, but I didn't attribute it or anything. Thanks for pointing that out.

Cool that you admit you're basing your editorial decisions on whether or not I show you personal respect. Really shows the kind of "help" you're giving the encyclopedia. See WP:POINT. Still want that admin? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

STOP reverting my talkpage. That is AGAINST Wikipedia policy. Again, I know you like flouting Wikipedia policies, but that doesn't mean it's ok. And I hate to burst your bubble but there's no difference from referring to me as "bitchy" and calling me a "bitch." I know you're into nitpicking and caviling over petty differences in order to start strife, like "per" and "as per," but regardless of this, there's no difference. And I'm not basing it on whether you show me respect. I wanted the article fixed before you started strife with me but was trying to keep the peace. But since you don't like the peace, I decided to push for editors to clean up this article. There's really nothing wrong in my desiring this article to be cleaned. And sarcasm and insincerity laced abuse of "dear highly fucking valued contributor" won't get my acknowledgements either. And please do not refer to one emphasized word as screaming. I've not shown you disrespect. It's all been you.AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a coincidence that you suddenly want it cleaned up so bad right after your contribution was shot down? I tried to help you make it work in several ways, but you'd rather do what you're doing. Sorry for restoring your warnings, I thought you'd deleted them because they were a jumble of text. So I put helpful bullet points on them. If you'd like to hide them, that's cool. But stop disrupting the RAW article. And when you capitalize and' use four exclamation marks, you're screaming. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yea, you say sorry about something. I respectfully accept and try to work something out with you. We have peace and five days later, you show up out of the blue for some more drama. Not falling for it this time over. I'm not sure what your intentions are here at Wikipedia InedibleHulk. And you seem to get offended when I engage in your same behavior. All I'm doing at the Wikipedia RAW article is removing material because it's not sourced. You say you remove mine because it's not properly sourced in your personal opinion. What is this, your way or the highway. I know characteristics such as "fair," "reasonable," "peace" and "agreeable" bore you but for the sake of Wikipedia, could you please try to adopt these characteristics.AmericanDad86 (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Tried. A lot. But now I've taken Keith Okamoto up on his suggestion and reported you for disruptive editing. Some outside party will take a look at our conversations and edit histories and decide what's best here. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As well, thank you for the heads up on the WrestleMania 29 article. I'll be sure to proofread the section for solecisms and mistakes so that it looks presentable.AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be helpful, thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Mercy! You weren't lying about the poor writing. =D AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Your last comment here, your pointy editing and your re-addition of the undue section, full of unsourced praising hyperbole, has led me to stop assuming good faith. If you continue to act this way, you'll be formally warned. If you ignore it, I'll ask that you be blocked. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Internet Championship belt.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Internet Championship belt.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [12], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Stefan2 (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Celebrity Championship Wrestling belt.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Celebrity Championship Wrestling belt.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [13], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Stefan2 (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Internet Championship belt.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Internet Championship belt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Celebrity Championship Wrestling belt.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Celebrity Championship Wrestling belt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

ANEW

I've reviewed the report at WP:ANEW. Both you and the other editor are edit warring at WWE Raw, as well as personally sniping at each other. Consider this a warning. If you edit the article at all (that doesn't include the talk page) in the next 7 days, you may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Help

Hi, Hulk. I see that you have some problems with a 3RR. I don't know much about rules in this wiki, but do you want my help? You help me a lot of times in the past, I can try to explain my point of view. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that's alright. Thanks for asking. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"Would"

So I notice in a couple articles I follow you've actively removed and/or reworded sentences with the word "would" in the sentence, i.e., "he would go on to win the championship." I don't see the problem with that sentence structure. Maybe if it was horribly rampant in the article it should be reworded but there's really nothing wrong with it. What was the reason for "chopping would" as you put it? ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 17:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In some contexts, it's alright. Usually when talking about the future, as in "The Rockers split up in 1991. Michaels would go on to great success, Jannetty would not be so fortunate." Or "McMahon announced Cena would face Punk next week." Also conditionally, as in "If Cena lost, he would be fired."

But not when talking about a past event. You shouldn't say "The Rockers would split up in 1991" or "McMahon would announce Cena would face Punk". It's unnecessarily wordy, and sounds vaguely hypothetical in the infinitive tense (would he or did he?) .It's commonly used rhetorically in less formal writing and narration, so I understand why some people adopt it. But Wikipedia's Manual of Style says: "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." If "The Rock would go on to win the match" means the same as "The Rock won the match", the former is obviously unnecessarily long and indirect.

There is other wordiness in these articles, too, but I focused on scanning for "would". When I saw other stuff around that word, I changed it for the same reason. Wordiness and run-on paragraphs make Wikipedia hard to read for many, and in some articles, it's much more horribly rampant than others. I'm working down a list alphabetically, so I'm going to run into some articles that only use it once or twice. Not a huge problem there, but no harm in fixing a small problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a specific "would" edit you have a problem with? Assuming you even have a problem with this, that is. Hard to tell if you do or if you're just curious. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Your recent editing history at Domestic terrorism in the United States shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

You seem to be the IP who readded the Boston thing. If you'll check the talk page, you'll see I already started the discussion (on sketchy cases, in general. Contributed to the existing specific Boston discussion). Your edit was a violation of WP:BLPCRIME, and my reversion of it is exempt from 3RR restrictions (point 7). InedibleHulk (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.24.33.221 (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Determination?

The tournament's official name as per All-Japan.co.jp is "世界最強タッグ決定リーグ戦". The word "決定" or "kettei" is in there and means "determination". It's the official name and it's not my problem that English language reporters haven't figured this out. Some even use the even more wrong "Real World Tag League" version to this day.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be OR to translate yourself, in light of all the English sources for "team". Maybe not. I started a discussion on the Wikiproject, just so this doesn't turn into my opinion versus yours. Probably on your watchlist, but if not, let's talk there. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Professional Wrestling Barnstar
		Awarded by Vjmlhds for work in keeping professional wrestling articles up to wikipedia Standards (talk) Vjmlhds 20:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a dumbell...there is a wrestling specific barnstar...I want to make sure you get the one I intened for you to get. talk) Vjmlhds 20:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, man. You do a lot of good, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of WWE personnel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Professional wrestling authority figures may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm InedibleHulk. I have automatically detected that it's more weird than polite when a bot thanks a human. Does not compute. But I've executed your command. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry! I misread that. I thought that was his edits, not yours. AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

How do you perform a strikethrough? Can you place a strikethrough over my comment about you on that page? I gotta go and do not have the time. AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Honest mistake. Just try to keep a cool head. Strike it through when you have time. Or don't. Doesn't bother me any. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I am more than willing to admit when I'm wrong. I shall. Do you think I should place the edit at his version?! You think it's better? You be the ultimate decider because of my bad behavior. :D AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you don't have the time. Your friend must be wondering where you are. You go have fun, and we'll worry about the article. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw your edit here: [14]. No, my above apology to you really wasn't intended to be sarcastic as you labeled it as possibly being. Wholly sincere! But anyways, I see you chose his version of the edit over mine. Although I don't agree with the new edit and find it confusing as in areas, I'm just going to bow out. Happy editing! AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You too. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

hey Hulk, mind explaining why you're not in favour of the cites at the talk page? Starship.paint (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yikes. After I added the NXT championships to the template of WWE Championships, I now see that a whole new template has been created for the NXT championships that also lists the defunct FCW championships. As such do you think we should undo the addition of the NXT championships to the WWE template? Starship.paint (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No. I think we should delete the newer one. Its purpose is served by the WWE one. We don't list defunct WWE titles, so defunct developmental titles should be no different. Why'd you ask in this section? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I see. Why I asked in this section, er... I didn't feel like starting a new section. Weird and I can't explain it either. Starship.paint (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Be like the boy! InedibleHulk (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Signature links

Would you consider removing the links from your signature? Having the day and year linked breaks the Comments in Local Time gadget, as seen here, and is generally confusing to those of us who have that gadget enabled. —Darkwind (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I see the problem. Is it with having to subtract the comment date from the current date, or having to subtract seven hours from UTC time? Knowing the relative time I commented doesn't seem like important info, and can be easily calculated if needed. Outweighed by the Wikilink to more valuable info on the date, I think.

But if there's something I'm missing, let me know and I'll consider it further. And sorry for the slow reply. I wasn't ignoring you, just didn't see it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

More appropriate to use the more scientific term than the more euphemistic, since we're dealing with scientists.

Well, perhaps. Except that the organisation itself refers to them as "Deceased" rather than "Dead" ...
Is there any reason why you (or I) should not revert your edit? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(BTW: This is not withstanding the fact that I actually prefer your change to the original. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC))

WP:EUPHEMISM says to avoid them. But yeah, it's sourced that way. If you and I also prefer it, seems like 2 points to 1. But I'll leave it up to you. Seems more like "your" article than mine, from the edit history. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(As it suits my biased POV), I'm more than happy to go with your "supporting arguments", and leave it as it is.

In any case, in theory, the issue is a moot point because, in theory, these will all be replaced by the year of death. (In theory ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed a few bluelinks with missing dates. Thought about helping out, but got lazy. Good luck with that! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Newtok, Alaska

I noticed such an edit many weeks ago, but I was content to let it go until I started seeing more and more of it. That first time, another person was in the room with me, who is Iñupiaq. In their language, it means pretty much the same, except it's anak rather than anaq. I proceeded to read the text of the edit to him. His reaction was pretty much one of utter shock that he would be hearing such a word coming from the mouth of a tanik (that would be "white boy" to you and me).

What you inquired about is called revision deletion. In some cases, admins will use it to hide information, such as in this case, obvious BLP violations. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 01:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Once again, cool story. Hadn't even realized there are Iñupiaq, let alone what they call "my people". I hope anak and tanik aren't pronounced too closely.

I can see the point of hiding the edit, but "hiding" the username like that is a bit too obvious. Not that I mind. Just struck me as odd. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Tons of Funk

I know they haven't been together as long as the Rhodes Scholars, but they've stuck together long enough that I'm wondering when it might be appropriate to make an article about them. We could still link to their sections on Bro and Ten's pages but like, I am not sure when to determine if they are notable enough to make a page for. Ranze (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Probably a better question to ask at the Pro Wrestling Wikiproject's talk page than here. They've recently been cleaning up stables and teams over notability problems. This was one of those deleted, and I vaguely recall your username from an argument about that. Guess that's why you're here. Or maybe because I fixed the redirect. I weigh in on arguments (deletion and otherwise) and copyedit, but leave creation and destruction to a higher power.

In my opinion, they still haven't done enough as a team, but I don't watch much WWE lately, so I could be wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of old school wrestling...

Yikes. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 21:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, fuck...I just listened to this like four times in a row. Couldn't stop laughing the entire time. The first guy should have thrown Kuniaki Kobayashi into that list of names just to throw the hosts off even further. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 21:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice. Men of the people, all of them. I wonder if he used a Wikipedia list. The funniest part is I was just watching Kobayashi vs Tiger Mask on YouTube last night. Not a bad match. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The other day/week/whatever, I was browsing a website which was offering Memphis wrestling videos, some duplicated from air masters. I guess several different people are each claiming they hold copyright, including Jarrett and Lawler, which is why that footage has shown up on TNA and WWE-released stuff from time to time. Anyway, the narrative on this website mentioned that they bought the masters from Jeff Osborne, who himself had purchased them from the local Evansville station which aired the 60-minute version of the Memphis studio show.

TO GET TO THE POINT (*cough, cough*): about 20( ) years ago, Jeff Osborne came up with a rather novel concept, a wrestling sheet which was distributed on cassette rather than in paper form. Cassette trading had become somewhat popular by then, starting with Dave Meltzer and others actually being invited to appear on talk shows to discuss wrestling. Then other fans started hearing about Eddie Andelman, who had been talking about wrestling for years on the air, but was only ever heard in Boston. Actual wrestling talk shows followed. The only one from that era which stood out was Ray Whebbe's show in the Twin Cities. That show existed mainly to promote Pro Wrestling America shows. I guess it worked, because they ran in some sports bar, yet were actually outdrawing the AWA in the Twin Cities by some point in 1990. This was probably once the Jerry Lynn vs. Sean Waltman feud started getting real hot. Whebbe sent me tapes of PWA shows as well as the radio show, which I doubt I have anymore. They had a lot of good young talent, which of course didn't last because the overall business was in the middle of taking a big crap at that time. I think this was around the same time I went to one of Don Owen's latter-day shows, held in front of about 150 toothless chicken farmers and their kinfolk. Didn't make it to the Portland Sports Arena for wrestling, but I did make it the next day for Sandy Barr's flea market.

Actually, I never did get to the point. Osborne's sheet, I think called Cassette Wrestling News, sounded way too much like all these podcasts and Internet radio shows and quite a few of the shoot interviews I'm constantly coming across today. It seems like a lot of ideas in this business are recycled. Imagine how the Mid-Atlantic fans must have felt to see the 1989 version of Flair vs. Steamboat play out in front of their eyes exactly the same as it did in 1977. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 22:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That's quite the rant, even by your standards. Not knocking it, though. Good story. As for the point, you're right, but recycling is certainly not limited to wrestling. I used to listen to music on cassette, my parents got their news in the papers, and my grandparents had political speeches on phonograph. Even in a new format, those things are still pretty much as they were, only the names have changed.

I don't feel as bad for fans who saw the same match, 12 years apart (or less, if they lived in a house show hotspot), as I do for the kids lately, who see the same Cena/Orton/Sheamus vs Punk/Del Rio/Big Show several times a year on TV, not including PPV main events. I have no idea how they're supposed to keep up. Where we had a storyline to follow linearly, they've just a tangled pile of storyrope.

Certainly cool how easily we can revisit the past with this Internet thing, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Homer

No I certainly see the merits of it: it's one of the last great Homer bits. I think my main concern with the placement, it just didn't fit where it was, but I have no major objections to it being there. But the link to Lardlad is uneeded, merely citing the episode itself is sufficient. Gran² 14:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought it complemented the alcoholic part. When the tavern is home away from home, and the library is no man's land, they seem like two sides of the same "stupid like a fox" coin. If you can think of a better place for it, let me know.

I figured if readers could hear it for themselves, it'd be more verifiable than taking a citation's word for it, or finding the episode. I made a point of not linking to the quote page itself, just the MP3 of the primary work. If you think a citation is enough, though, that's fine by me. The other reverter seemed to have a problem with that site, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

RVD

Umm...I'm not sure what I did to get your goat.

I put RVD on the roster after WWE.com put him on theirs, just so we wouldn't go round and round about whether he should be there or not.

If I spoiled something for you before you got around to see it, I'm sorry, but I made sure everything was in place on WWE's end before I added him here.

BTW...a "Heyman Guys" crew of Brock/RVD/Axel would be great.

Vjmlhds (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Just a minor spoiler, worthy of a small complaint. I barely follow the stories, except through PPVs and their excellent video package recaps (I used to complain about them being repetitive when I watched every show, but now I appreciate it). So I was barely annoyed. Just would have been a bit cooler to be surprised at Payback.

I stay away from places I expect could spoil things, but I check my watchlist here. Can't unsee an edit summary like "RVD added to WWE.com's roster", "Christian returned on RAW" or a new section called RVD. It's a bit like (but better than) how some entertainment sites on Google News have "SPOILER ALERT:" immediately followed by the spoiler right in the headline, or if someone yells "Heads up!" after they toss something from a roof onto you.

The edits themselves are fine, but if you don't mind in the future, be a little vaguer with summaries and sections. "He was added to the roster" or "He returned on RAW", for example, or a "New Signing" section title. It would still make sense to anyone looking there on purpose, but wouldn't blindside anyone else. Shorter to type, too.

And yeah, I've changed my SummerSlam prediction/spoiler slightly, after reading a kayfabish Heyman quote about RVD. I think those three will be a brief stable (because everything's brief today), but they'll screw RVD before SummerSlam to set up the Punk match. Try to look surprised. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to be more discreet in the future (I can only speak for myself here...can't control what others do). But as per WP:SPOILER, information like this (as well as any title changes that may occur at a TV taping and stuff like that) can be added into articles (as long as it's sourced of course). And word on the street is that they're setting up Punk-Brock at Summerslam. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Just controlling yourself would be fine, I guess. Set a positive example for the others. That guideline is about article content only, but yeah, I agree with it. Word on my street says it's Lesnar and The Headshrinkers vs The Smoking Gunns and Tatanka. Time will tell. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Try?

Yoda said it best. --MelanieN (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, he'd make a great tenth member on that team. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

July 5

My edit summary reverting you was incorrect: Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year is where the guideline to use present tense is located. —howcheng {chat} 06:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and the discussion page is where I pointed out that, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, that rule can't override the broader WP:TENSE (and basic English grammar rules). InedibleHulk (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop changing the tense in the data articles as you have begun doing at July 4 and July 5. Discussion is ongoing and making the changes against consensus is disruptive. In a show of good faith I ask that you respect the discussion process. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

In a show of good faith, I ask that you please stop with the tense changes to the date pages. Please let the discussion continue. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You closed the discussion. You can't say it's ongoing when it suits you. And I don't buy your good faith pitch for a second. You're willfully ignoring reason and policy, in my opinion. Would it be a show of good faith if I asked you to stop as well? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

InedibleHulk and Mufka....actually I would think it would show good faith if you both stopped, and then try to decide if the discussion is ongoing...and if there is a consensus, at all. Lectonar (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit Conflict: You're interpreting the close of that discussion to indicate the the discussion itself is closed. I clearly said in my closing comments that the discussion needs to be restarted with more input. You had started the RfC so clearly a discussion was indeed ongoing. What are you asking me to stop? If no new consensus is reached, and you went and changed several articles, it would be a mess to cleanup. Is it not reasonable to wait until new consensus is reached? What's the hurry to make the change? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, more input. I started a new discussion in the broader community, rather than your Wikiproject. Now, per LOCALCONSENSUS, you have to convince them that the project rule is right. Until then, your Wikiproject consensus doesn't matter, the general TENSE guideline applies. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You agreed here not to change any more tenses on the date pages until the discussion was completed. What's this? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Another editor pointed out the inconsistency in that one I missed. Figured the good in fixing the inconsistency would outweigh any slight to our agreement. Apparently, I was wrong. No offense meant. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Replying to structured comments

Hi InedibleHulk. When you see a structured comment by an editor with one signature at the end, it isn't good to insert replies inside it, responding to each paragraph or bullet in situ. It disrupts formatting and orphans parts of the original commment from the signature. I've refactored the case at WT:MOS as best I can. If you want to adjust the way I've done it, no problem, but please leave my comment intact. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I figured as long as the replies had different margins, it would be clear which comment is whose. But I've no problem with your way, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Good luck!

	IKEA Monkey bait
	For Darwin of course =P. I'm glad you're taking the time to create that article and wish you luck with it! ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully I won't need luck, but it never hurts. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I got an error message the first time (it timed out or something) and so didn't realise i added two lots of bananas and luck. And apparently i didn't notice what i did. No harm done then i see. Have a nice day ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Solving the signature moves

Hi Hulk, I've helped out with Mantaur, and was hoping for your response for my WT:PW reply regarding the signature moves. Starship.paint (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Black60dragon

Hi. Remember Black60dragon? He is an user that, six months ago, said that WWE is World Wrestling Entertainment and he reverted a lot our editions in Triple Crown Championship. We said him that now, the official name is WWE, no World Wrestling Entertainment. He does the same thing in John Cena and Big Show articles. I explained it again and give your edition (Nov 2012) at Triple Crown Championship. Also, I think that he delete a lot of warnings. Do you want to help me? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

One thing, about TNA TV TIlte, I think that we have to wait until TNA remove it from the website. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sadly, I remember him. I'll take a look. Hopefully it's something that can be resolved without much discussion.

The TV title thing isn't a big problem. As long as Abyss is called that on the website, no harm in keeping it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Noah? Liam? Jayden?

Wikipedia is no place for idle chat or humour, you know!! You should know better than to insult and defame our very dear future king!!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC) .. great to see that Kate has made the wiki front page at last - but my, how childbirth has aged her... and that beard! I had no idea...

Yeah, chatting is best left to forums and user talk. I've left that bit out, but restored the non-chat. Now and then I run into someone who takes my style to mean there's no seriousness behind it. I have no idea if the prince's story will play out like that, but should it happen, better to have the sources and context at the ready.

For what it's worth, no defamation was intended. Someone like Stannis Baratheon would make a damn fine king, in my books. But yeah, I know you're joking. And yeah, she looks a tad gruff there. Good call! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

And now you have the effrontery to ask for a hat! Cripes. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Guess that might look a bit suspicious. No usurpation intended, either. If he's called Jayden, though, I might consider it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

As one particular urban poet once remarked....

"You’re like a dose of scabies,

I’ve got you under my skin.

You make life a fairy tale... Grimm!" Martinevans123 (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC) [15]

Nothing says childhood wonder like the "The Death of the Little Hen". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

What a jolly tale. I'm surprised JCC never adapted that one. Perhaps he did... [16] Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Captures the essence, but misses the bonus fun of even stones and coals dying. Not sure why, but that struck me harder than the animals as a kid. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Haha, not sure JCC captures anything much that wasn't on the streets of Salford! I never heard that story as a child, but I know exactly what you mean. Even the straw being swept away. It's just magical. But sooooo Grimm! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Schick (razors), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FTC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Daniels

That is some thing he accomplished during a TNA One Night Only Event along with Team USA during the TNA World Cup of Wrestling along with several other TNA Superstars JMichael22 (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that show only airs on November 1. So until that time, it hasn't happened in the storyline universe. Some aspects of wrestling are real, but things like wins and losses, titles, feuds, alliances are all fictional primary information and dependent on the original fiction (that is, TNA TV or their website).

Keep in mind, not everything that is taped ends up airing, or may be edited significantly. Maybe the most notable example is The Rockers' title match in 1990. Not saying the same thing will happen here, but it might. In any case, the World Cup tournament hasn't even officially begun, so nobody has won it yet.

I'm 99.5% sure two major characters will die in the next season of Game of Thrones because I read the books. The scenes may have already been filmed. But I can't say they're dead yet in the show, just like you can't after reading TNA spoilers about something that happened in real life. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Well in the case of TNA Wrestling all of there events are pre recorded and even tho the events are pre record they give you the results of the show before it airs in example of Maniks X division Championship win it was announced before the episode was aired as well as the TNA World Cup results were announced before it is scheduled to air JMichael22 (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

So in saying this that means the results become official as they are announced or on the actually date the episode or event takes place not the date the episode or event is set to air. JMichael22 (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Impact is taped, yes. And the same rules apply. If someone wins a title or turns heel, we don't mention it till it airs, or is mentioned by TNA. Whether "it was announced" by some guy at the show isn't important. Only the show's creators can decide when and how the plot unfolds. If something real happened, like Daniels broke his neck at the taping or was suspended for showing up drunk, we'd mention that because it happened "out of universe" (that is, the real world). Read that link, it should clear things up.

Whether you understand the guideline or not, it exists, so I'll revert you, based on that. Unless you have a policy-based reason, or find a source from TNA saying Daniels' team already won, leave it alone or it'll be treated as disruptive editing. Not trying to be a dick, but there are standards here. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay I completely understand your reasoning but if you are to or wanna get technical about the whole thing on TNA's official YouTube channel they post the results of the TNA One Night Only Shows as well they provide evidence to back up the claim I am making so in saying this maybe you should learn for your self as I did to research a topic before you make edits on them just makes everything more clear to a reader and more realistic JMichael22 (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If this YouTube source exists like you say it does, you may have a leg to stand on. You should have used it instead of the CageMatch.net spoilers (which doesn't work on a few levels, as I mentioned on your talk page). Care to share the link? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is an official results page from bleacherreport a notable source covers all sports including professional Wrestling TNA World Cupand also if it's now or in November that accomplishment will sooner or later be there due to the facts it's something he has already accomplished during his time in TNA, along with TEAM USA defeating TEAM Aces & Eights in the Finals of the TNA World Cup of Wrestling JMichael22 (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing official or reliable about BleacherReport. It's a site anyone can write for (which is why it's explicitly listed as an unreliable source). In this case, it cites TNAAsylum (a fansite), which credits a fan named Joshua Robert.

Where's this official YouTube source you said provides evidence for your claim? That would matter, Bleacher Report does not. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As I checked last night They took down there One Night Only events from there channel but other users still have the events but I was guessing you might not count factual video evidence as proof since your trying so hard to fight the fact he was part of the winning team, also since you want factual evidence of the point system if you visit Wikipedia's TNA One Night Only it shows all the information you are looking for so you were trying to tell me not to post the information about who won because there is no evidence on who won when the wikipedia page clearly shows the point system the matches and the winners of the Tournament, but regardless of the fact any true TNA Fan who watches it or is deep into it knows who won (so like I stated before) if its now or in November that accomplishment will be added by me or another user due to the facts he has already won JMichael22 (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether his team will win on points is a separate issue. Even if true, the main thing is it hasn't happened (in their fiction) yet. No different than filming any other scene for any other TV show. I have absolutely no problem with listing it in November, if it happens the way it seems it will. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you believe the TNA One Night Only page is WP:SPOILER page since half the events haven't been aired? JMichael22 (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No, that's fine. That article is written from a "real world perspective". It describes actual events, and the production/distribution of them. Championships, characters and other storyline things are WP:INUNIVERSE. Daniel Covell filming a scene in which his character wins a tournament doesn't have real world significance to him. He didn't win anything (except a cheque), he just acted like he was told to act.

It only affects his character, Christopher Daniels, and only on November 1. Would you say Tony Soprano died when The Sopranos ended, or when Gandolfini shot the scene? Did Superman die when the issue was drawn, or when it was released? Wrestling is different from most TV shows and comics in a lot of ways, but this isn't one of them. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense due to the fact that if you have yet to see something happen for yourself and someone tells you what happened... That's a spoiler, the page is filled with information No one knows is true until it gives yet they have complete information on the results of every match that took place at an event (:I'm 99.5% sure two major characters will die in the next season of Game of Thrones because I read the books. The scenes may have already been filmed. But I can't say they're dead yet in the show, just like you can't after reading TNA spoilers about something that happened in real life.) - your statement, so what I'm getting at is if you truly know and are smart enough to realize that spoilers are spoilers for a reason and 99% of the time are true depending on your source then you would know that each tournament accomplishment for each wrestler who won a tournament at One Night Only is indeed a fact without any doubt in mind for example in MMA Joe Riggs from Fight Master: Bellator MMA announced last night and today that he will face Mike Bronzoulis at the Fight Master Finale on September 7 at Bellator 98 now he made this claim in a interview live on Sherdog Radio.... Now is that a spoiler or is that just factual evidence to support the finale fight for Bellator 98 even tho the season is still giving and hasn't ended.... I believe its true due to the facts he wouldn't say it live on radio if it weren't true and second even tho Bellator hasn't announced his claim makes perfect sense if you watch the Show for yourself.... In closing no matter what knowing something before it happens is considered a spoiler the TNA One Night Only Page is filled with spoilers specially for those who haven't seen the events yet unfold and Joe Riggs making his claim for the Finale is a spoiler for those who are very much into the show and had no clue the end result.... Christopher Daniels along with Kenny King Mickie James James Storm and Kazarian won the TNA World Cup of Wrestling that's a fact there is no way around it..... Joe Riggs vs. Mike Bronzoulis in the Fight Master Finale is also a fact no one can argue so these two things are spoilers and very true with many sources to back them both up.... this TNA One Night Only Situation and all spoiler situations remind me of When WCW used to announce the results of Monday Night Raw before it had a chance to air no one knew if they were before they saw the show but truly every time they made claim to the shows results they were always true (like I said before 99% of spoilers are indeed facts) JMichael22 (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

First, if you're going to say a lot, please use paragraphs. Or at least just throw a space in there every few sentences. Per WP:TLDR.

Why are we arguing about the One Night Only page now? Sure, it spoils things, but there's no problem with spoilers on Wikipedia.

The problem is with this being a storyline thing. When you compare wrestling to MMA, it makes me think you don't quite understand how it works. The story plays out on TV. It hasn't yet, even if we're 100% sure it will. You wouldn't say those Bellator guys fought just because you know they will. Maybe see WP:CRYSTALBALL.

You might also be thinking of a taping like a house show. House shows are different. They're never meant to air in the first place and any plot twists are "canon". So if the characters win titles at one, we can mention it as soon as we have a report. But this event was intended, by the creators, to be shown on November 1, just like the last scene in a movie can be filmed first.

The only reason we even know what went down is because wrestling is taped before a live audience, most of whom are wrestling fans with Internet access. There's no way to stop it, but it doesn't mean we have to let amateur reporters dictate the order of the stories. That's the bookers and producers' jobs. Some fans saw Daniel Covell shoot the scenes, but Christopher Daniels hasn't won anything till TNA shows it or says so, because he's their character.

If you want to discuss it further, start a conversation somewhere others might join. These things tend to go back-and-forth with just two people. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)