Jump to content

User talk:InedibleHulk/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Does this section look nice here?

Yes. Yes, it does. Better than a blank page. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Can't always be about the wrestling. Gotta mix it up a bit. Bom-ba-ye! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Miki Bean Jam Filled Rice Cake Eating Contest, eh? Hadn't heard of that one. Cro Cop probably wouldn't be good at it. Quite a bit slower than he used to be, but still has good technique and strength. I think he'll lose his belt in a ground fight this time around, but good for him for still getting paid. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Round One went something like that, but Round Two was classic Cro Cop. The 40-year-old champ is here! And Aoki becomes the third or fourth fighter ever to lock in a twister (basically an abdominal stretch, and about as rare as in wrestling to see it applied correctly). Good stuff, 2014. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker), but you already knew that – Back to wrestling for a sec, I watched Raw for the first time in a long time recently when I visited some friends and they had it on. Just before I was about to leave, Ryback comes out and one of them exclaims "Hey, look, it's Goldberg!". It was good for a quick laugh. In the previous segment, they showed this great close-up shot of Bray Wyatt. I wanted to blurt out "Wow, Blackjack Mulligan has much different facial hair!", but I knew that I would have completely lost them with that remark.

Anyway...I came across Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not/BJAODN the other day. I added something at the bottom which may be of interest/amusement to you. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice. I wish Spiros Arion had wrestling grandkids. Or still wrestled himself. Or was at least referenced on commentary during Cesaro matches. Da people do need to know. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I am pissed. Wanna get Reigns over? Let him steal Sin Cara/Hunico's coolest move. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. I'm a little pissed at what Reigns is wearing. But mainly just pissed at WWE TV, in general, these last few years, so keep my distance. If he doesn't get his powerbomb and outfit together by Rumble time, I'm not hopping on his Bandwagon to WrestleMania. I'll root for Duggan instead (he's morally bound to show up again, with this thin roster.)
Anyway, if the old wrestler does a move better, it can't really be stolen. The newer, crappier one will just remind people of the good one. Like the Irishman with his whip. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I feel you about the WWE main roster. I've quit watching as well, just read the results. The killer 'C's, commentary and creative. SmackDown lost its relevance when the brand split ended in 2011. Furthermore, WWE hosts the climax of their TV segments on YouTube for quick consumption if need be. Did you know that Jim Ross and Matt Striker commentated Wrestle Kingdom 9 in Tokyo less than a week ago? Lastly, Hunico is a lower-card wrestler. I doubt that he used that powerbomb much on Raw or SmackDown, because his longer matches weren't on those shows. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, "Cole" definitely starts with C. He gets JBL going off on funny tangents, but that's about it. Weird you mention Wrestle Kingdom. I've heard about it for months on The Ross Report, and was looking forward to it, but it slipped my mind till yesterday. Told myself I'd watch it tomorrow (today). So I will. I haven't seen a lot of New Japan in the last five years or so. Nice mix of strangers and familiar faces on this one, and yeah, great commentary team.
The important thing is you see it as Hunico's move. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Rewriting required

Hello!

Happy New Year!

Hope you good.

I was wondering if you can help me?

I need this section rewritten based in the link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Russell.mo#Rewriting_required). Can you help. A lot tried to help, I keep on muddling it up. I thought of you today...

(Russell.mo (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC))

Right about to head to bed. Not even an excuse, just weird timing. I'll check it out tomorrow. Happy New Year! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay buddy, good night. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC))
Still here, for some reason. Leaving right now. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for performing the task. Kind regards. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC))

Chaotic Neutral?

Haha! Me too, since 1980. Perhaps we should form a club with very strict rules.... μηδείς (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, if it weren't for you, I'd be surer that was about me. Just to be clear, though, I'm not into D&D. Just enough to make that reference and get your joke. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Jericho

I'm not trying to beat you up or anything, it's just that there's such a thing as too much detail. Y2J is wrestling right now - let's deal with what he does when his current tour of duty ends when we get there.

Vjmlhds (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the leaving detail. Now there's just one, about house shows only. That's clearly a notable difference between him and the rest of the roster. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
It's Jericho...nothing's ever etched in stone with him. Besides, there are others who do house shows and don't appear much (if at all) on TV (Axel, Otunga). I always try to leave some wiggle room...nothing more than that. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Nothing is ever etched in stone with anything. All we can do is report the facts as we presently have them. If he shows up on TV, remove the note. If he doesn't, it's completely accurate. If the other guys schedules have the secondary coverage, that's notable, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Just in case ...

you need this kind of reassurance, as I'm certain you do not, what with your hat strategically tipped below one eye and your other eye in the mirror as you watch yourself go by, but just in case: you are not meant and it doesn't fit. I find your contributions refreshing, even when off-topic, just don't wish to feed your oversized muscular green vanity, so no barnstar, soz. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't need it, but thanks. You have some good ones, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Fishing expedition accomplished. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hola!

What you upto?

I'm tired and bored bro, doing my work 24/7. Thought of you again! Anything fun to do/you do, where you can join me?

(Russell.mo (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC))

I'm going to bed... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC))
I think we're on different sides of the world. I'm no fun online. Have a good night, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes we are. I thought you probably do something online... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC))
I do, but for single player things. Wikipedia is the closest I come to online interaction. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Lol. Don't you use facebook/twitter? Not that I wish to know your ID, just wondering. I have a/cs (for the sake of it) but no friends...
If you don't mind me asking, how old are you now? Reason for asking is due to the achievements you acquired in Wikipdia. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC))
I'm off to bed. Just finished playing 'Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 2'. I'm rubbish at it... Speak to you some other time. Gotta start work from tomorrow. Gonna be busy. Take care. Let me know if you know any good game names that I can buy... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC))
Had Facebook for for a couple of years, but it never stopped seeming creepy to me. E-mail is as "social" as I go now. What's a/cs?
Never got into Call of Duty. Too preachy and generic, like a typical US war movie, but more expensive. Don't like shooters in general (and I'm rubbish at them, too). I don't get too specific, but I'm in my thirties. Not too old to appreciate the variety of LittleBigPlanet 3. Tekken games are cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Same here, I’m in my thirties too. 'Call of duty' is a good game. If you ever come across to play it, don’t take it like a war game, just take it like, you are someone with guns and bombs who can aim and shoot both. Thanks for the game names, not my king of thing. I've played Takken, I hated it. I think it's because of the interconnection with the graphic movement, delayed the movements... If you like fighting games, I can recommend King of Fighters, is good. If you ever play then play either 97, 98 or I think 99. Speak to you soon. Take care. – (Russell.mo (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC))
I have GTA V for shooting and bombing. I like how how the scenery and uniforms can change. I haven't played a lot of the CoDs, but every one I see looks basically the same. More a training simulation than mental stimulation. I like the "art" part of art forms. I played King of Fighters '98 a bit, but it wasn't mine so didn't have time to get too deep. Fun, though. Been a while, so the graphics would probably annoy me, now. EA Sports UFC is all I have for next-gen fighting, and don't want to accept EA's Terms and Conditions for online. Decent game, though, if you don't need shoryukens and hadokens. Looking forward to Mortal Kombat X InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right about COD (lol). I got GTA San Andreas. I loved Mortal Kombat, I played it in Sega Mega drive 2. Mortal Kombat Armageddon seems like it consist most of the characters, view List_of_Mortal_Kombat_characters#Character_overview, I'll search for it and buy it when I get the time. I've only played a Boxing game in Play Station 2, I think it was an EA Sports game, I'm not sure. I don't mind UFC, I'll search for it when I'm searching 'MK A'. I like fighting. I am very good at it in real life, though always get defeated when it comes to it, for 3 reasons, 1) secret, 2) secret, 3) I can take my revenge in the afterlife. I have saved a few games to play in the near future because my Laptop is in 32bit mode, it doesn't allow me to play any good games because of it. I can't change it to 64bit because of the Antivirus system installed (not a great one, but will last forever. In other words, until the person who gave it changes their company). I got it from Canada btw. I've been their for 3 months. Though someone from Wikipedia advised MSE, I still fear for virus issues from my past experiences. I cannot afford to lose this AV system anyway even in the near future because the Laptop was given to me as a gift by my dear ones. Its the most valuable thing I have in my life now, along with some extras that I bought to go with it.

In the near future (about 3 years or so) , when my work is finished, when I'm in a better situation, hopefully I'll have a home, new PC and internet (and definitely be back home then), I'll give you King of Fighters, I have all of them. 97, 98, 99 will never grow old and will turn into gold... I'll also let you know before I depart this country I'm in now, if you want any games/softwares. I'll get them and upload it to you...

(Russell.mo (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC))

I was a bit disappointed by Armageddon. Lots of characters, definitely, but a lot feel the same, with different skins. And the fatality system is lame. Not bad, though, especially if you find it cheap. Deception was cool.
I've never meet a good fighter who always gets defeated. I'm intrigued by your technique, and wouldn't want to mess with your vengeful ghost.
Don't worry about games. I can find them as easy as you can, probably. Just sell me a copy of your book someday. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Lol.
I could tell you a couple of more sentences about it, in a figurative way but not here, and nowhere else either… It’s better to leave this topic anyway because, fighting is not the way of life. All I can say, it is good to learn and be amazing at it, but it’s not good when you can’t use it. I don’t consider myself as the most amazing fighter in the world, the king kong and so on (lol), I had two street fights and I’ve seen the losses they acquired. If any how a fight starts anywhere and I’m present, I try to escape with minimal contact if required… While living in the physical world, you’ll realise some day, the older you become, a good healthy body and a good face is all you need, not just for people, but for yourself too. I think you know, a good fighter will never fight, will only practice, I don’t even practice anymore… I’ve always been 100% with everything I did, ever since I surrendered and received the love of God, it became 50/50, made me very weak in other words but never regretted it. I am a zillion times happier than I ever have been. God is different for everyone! Just like a religion! If you know Him than you will know what afterlife is all about!
In regards to the book, you are the second person who volunteered to help the way it is required. 1st person is cancelled because just like everyone else she quit as it is little/too much for her, plus I need to learn in order to write the book not her, what clashed. No one wishes to volunteer in rewriting, only some Wikipedians mostly from ‘Ref desk’, though bits and bobs only, and I’m grateful for that. So far they have helped a lot. Beside a rewriter would have to possess a sheer amount of knowledge of religious and mythological education; have to know the intricacies to make sense of the book for others. Also impeccable writing knowledge of English Language, capable of writing 'old style' formal English, otherwise the book will look lame… Before the last time you helped, you advised to keep my head up… I hope you remember saying some people take years and some people take months… I’m from those who is taking years… I hope you remember saying to keep the googling option available, another person (cousin) said that too. I’m currently reading the story (since the last time you told me to keep my head up) I still haven’t finished reading the 25 pages. The hardest part is fixing my own English, you need to be a rocket scientist (lol) – I think you know this well as you helped once. I’ll tell you the name once it’s finished and published… If we ever meet in life, which I hope to in the near future because you are a good guy, I’ll give it to you for free…
O, last thing, don’t mind if I delay in messaging you next time, I have to take my time out to write a message, English is not my first language… Plus this message took me the whole day to write...
(Russell.mo (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC))
Hello, wikipedia is not allowing me to talk like this... Someone posted me saying I'm socialising... I'll get in touch with you if I need any help with the book... Thank you for you time. Take care of yourself bro... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC))

yo re ya

Hi; as you know I've stayed away from "that article" and its evil twin since all the fracas; don't know if you've noticed "his" hostile vote-call against me on an ANI whose subject he has nothing to do with, but note this re the missing archives from Oct 23 to November 14.....whaaaaat?!. Something's not right in wiki-land. But that's nothing new, either huh?Skookum1 (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I was mistaken, had the order of archive numbers wrong; but still don't see the section I'm thinking of; he'd edit-warred it out more than once, could it be that was done before it was archived? Hmmmm but Viriditas is right, nothing good ever comes of ANI and it's not a court of law; just a bear-baiting pit manned by contrarians who revel in sharp and illogical fang-biting...... "consensus" has always been a flawed alternative to "democracy"... it means that hte obstinate and irrelevant can claim equal status to others who are not.Skookum1 (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure you're on the right talk page? If so, I'll need a refresher. None of that (aside from "be like water") is ringing a bell. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I should just de-list that page and ignore it; WTM hasn't voted against me...who those other guys are that I've never ever heard from before is an open question....as are their motives. But that someone can so outrageously edit-redact there, and as you remember I'm sure about his edit-war on the Ottawa talkpage (apparently hidden again before archiving) is quite beyond me. ANI is a one-way clubbing-to-death hate-fest; always has been. Whatever, I have a newscast to get together and ya "be like water" is fine to say, but when someone's dumping poison into the water.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
"Be like water" is important, but the straight lead is fundamental, whether newscasting, engaging in metaphorical one-way clubbing to death or the more literal sort. Who, why, what, where, when. Direct and unambiguous.
I've figured out "that article" and "him", but the what, why and when are just grazing me. I don't remember anything about anyone hiding archives, and there were a few fracases involving votes and war. Is there something you want me to do? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I guess it was Alaney2k who restored those talkpage bits after LP deleted them (twice that I know of before I de-watchlisted that page), thought you'd remember, guess not; he didn't "hide archives", he must have deleted it again just before it was archived, which is why I got confused about the archives as you'd see on the ANI......can't ask you to vote, but..... the peeps voting "burn him" are people who have nothing to do with the issue at hand; but are only hostile for the sake of it IMO; ANI is a bullying venue, and people shoot their mouth off in one direction, making NPAs and AGFs of all kinds while conflating straightforward comments on what has taken place into claims of NPA, and never granting "good faith".
About your comment about "straight lead", one recurrent thing I've encountered and been condemned for, even threatened with blocks for doing so, is to name "who what where when" about given edits and tactics, even avoiding why and how, and THAT is conflated, quite regularly, into claims of NPA; but NPA is for outright person attacks, not accounts/criticisms of an editor's actions/words. My only interest is the whole and complete truth; but long experience has shown/taught me that those not interested in the truth, or actively seeking to repress/suppress it, engage in board-warring and censor-deletions/disputes - hell, have a look at nearly any open ANI at the moment about that - and make claims that they are invoking guidedlines....while violating several at once, and often misquoting those guidelines; anyone who says "TLDR" or "WoT" is someone who is threatened by, as Viriditas puts it, more than 40 words at once, has probably never fully read those guidelines they invoke; and insist that they are hard-and-fast rules; and conflate them endlessly, and attack those who dispute their activities with some alacrity and, as in the current case, rather vicious harassment and tub-thumping. Burn the witch, etc.Skookum1 (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not the number of words so much as it's the blockiness. You do go off on tangents here and there, but even those would be more readable if you'd use paragraphs.
In any Wikipolicy argument, it's never a great idea to concentrate on why and how the other side does things, just what they do, and how you can most easily and efficiently counter. Emotions and rhetoric don't count for much, and will tire you out as well as them.
If you must question someone's motives or call their character into disrepute, use their talk page instead. It helps everyone, involved and just reading, understand the actual points better. Remember, no matter how right any of us think we are about subjective things, there'll be someone with the exact opposite opinion on the Internet. By introducing opinions into debate, we risk enemies, even if they agree on the facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I DO make a point of breaking things into paragraphs and still get the WoT statements; from people who ignore far longer posts of their own or of others e.g. the board-discussions on OR that have served no purpose at all, other than to provide fuel for haters on ANI. And I've made accounts of edit histories that do not mention whys or hows, but do point out the POV results of their hard-line and monodimensional misquotes of guidelines (claiming them to be "policy" and rarely apologizing for that). TLDR was even used as part of a closer's comments, which contained groundless NPAs and AGF statements about me only. So along came Walls-of-Text which is a guideline only and NOT a policy. Or a "rule" ("there are no rules" is something the rule-happy just don't seem to ever acknowledge). Semi-literacy IMHO is taking over Wikipedia, by people concerned only with guideline-mongering and who don't know or care about the content and/or titles they are playing rule-games with; and attacking personality (me and my writing style) so as to never address the issues raised by the problems they create.Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Information icon Hello, I'm Elizium23. Your recent edit to the page Pope Benedict XVI appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Benedict is still alive. Do not imply he is dead by using "was" Elizium23 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
There is nothing for me to say. I guess people who know you, would understand what this means... Russell.mo (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Mr. Mo! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
-- (Russell.mo (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC))

Apology kitten for you!

Sorry about the EC. I thought I'd avoided it.

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13 Shevat 5775 18:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

All good. A few seconds of confusion a day is healthy. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I prefer a few hours to a day of confusion per day when I can help it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14 Shevat 5775 01:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll toast to that, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Johnson

Thanks for what you did at Talk:Anthony Johnson (fighter). Could you please leave a support or oppose vote on the page? Your opinion is highly valued. As well, do you believe consensus has been reached? Thanks again. WWE Batman131 (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I was clear enough which side of the fence I was on. If I wasn't, you wouldn't have said "highly valued". There's no magic ingredient in bold font that makes it more official.
As for consensus, it seems to be headed the way you'd like, but who knows who hasn't chimed in? Try not to get too wrapped up in the mission. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

British X-Pac

I didn't know that day/month/year was British, WP:YR lists it first, I find it superior because we save on the comma. Ranze (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Britain and Europe, and a few other places. Canadians and Americans almost always do it the "right way". There's a longstanding policy about this sort of thing, but it's been around so long, I've forgotten where it is. It exists, though. I wouldn't lie about something like this. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh right, it's there in WP:YR. MOS:DATETIES. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Manual notification

Please comment at Talk:WrestleMania 32. Thanks. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Further Edits to Tony Blinken

Being as you've previously made edits to the Tony Blinken article, I was hoping you could look at some changes I've suggested for the page on the Talk Page. Since I work at a public relations agency, and since Tony Blinken is a personal friend of one of the principals at my PR firm, my making the changes directly could easily be seen as a conflict of interest, so I'm making my appeal to you.

I've gone ahead and offered suggested edits with solid sourcing for the page's career section; I've also addressed the need for new citations needed elsewhere in the article. Would you take a look and see if these changes are acceptable?

Thanks in advance!

(Bgluckman (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC))

That name didn't ring a bell at first, but I remembered when I saw the talk page. Seem like fine improvements. Thanks for the work. Added. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hulk, I was just wondering ... has there been a main event winner at WrestleMania who was booed out of the building before? Other than at WrestleMania X-Seven when Austin turned? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Santa Clara is no Philadelphia, and from the sounds of things, they did an alright job of rubbing some of Goatboy off on Reigns tonight. The way it was meant to be, through honest wrestling ability, not having the guy McMahon and Austin chairfucked raise your hand for no apparent reason.
Think of it this way. If Bryan had won, his fans would be still be disappointed by the Rumble, and Rumble fans would have seen the event's credibility shat upon. And then we'd have Lesnar vs Bryan. While that might sound nice on paper, is there any half-believable way to see a vegan welterweight babyface beat the former UFC Heavyweight Champion? Brock could legitimately accidentally break him in half.
While you were watching that, I was in Porto Alegre, watching the heavyweight Lesnar smashed smash a guy who might be Andre the Giant's illegitimate son. In 1:40. It was more devastating than Big Show clocking Ziggler. The WWE Universe sees that shit, too. WrestleMania's the biggest stage of them all. Gotta have beef. Gotta have spice, too, but can't snap into a Slim Jim. Dig it? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, time distortion, man, time and space. The Savage documentary released by WWE last year was really good, except that the year and a half he spent in Memphis was discussed for all of about five seconds. I would guess this was because Poffomania was an invasion angle long before anyone ever heard of Scott Hall or Kevin Nash, and his piledriving Ricky Morton through the table preceded Terry Funk's such act on Ric Flair by years. Don't bother to acknowledge something if you don't have the footage available to back it up, I guess. Anyway, the nearest 24-hour store is 21 miles down the road from me. Between the sheer distance involved and the fact that the actual drive is something like "Over the river and through the woods to grandmother's house we go" meets A Nightmare on Elm Street, most days I stop there on my way home to make sure I have whatever I need, as I don't drive into town on a whim for much of anything. Some weeks back, I stopped in there and I noticed that they had "Slim Jim Bacon Jerky" on display. I thought to myself, if that isn't the shit that killed Randy Savage, then I don't know what is. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
It's why Bret Hart couldn't technically main event IX. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, man. While you were typing all of that, I was reading the WM articles. I saw heels winning for WrestleMania 2000 and WrestleMania XXVII but both had the Rock sending the fans home happy.
  • I disagree with you on some points - say Bryan won, I don't think the fans will be disappointed much that he didn't win the Rumble because he's going to beat the 1 in 21-1, which is the bigger accomplishment.
  • WWE already shat on the Rumble's credibility with the Fastlane main event, regardless of the result. They also reneged on the Survivor Series (2014) main event stipulation just months earlier.
  • Kayfabe - Bryan has four world championships and one US title to Reigns' zero world championships, one Rumble win, Rumble and Survivor Series record. Plus, Bryan main-evented WMXXX. Reality - Reigns is a failed footballer. Bryan has trained in MMA and jiujitsu. Bryan could have been booked as a legitimate threat to Lesnar - if WWE let him live up to his name of the submission specialist - tapping out everyone since his return in December 2014. The way Lesnar's been booked, he shouldn't be beaten toe-to-toe - though Reigns will beat him using strength - Lesnar has to be outsmarted. I'm not seeing how Reigns can even play the role of the underdog.
  • I just watched Mir v Lesnar I - UFC's made it public. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I honestly don't see Reigns winning, through strength, foreign objects or reverse referee decision. Whichever contender is more legit, I think they've helped the belt by using it sparingly, on a monster. Put it on any TV guy, it'll go back to being that belt that changes on RAW ten times a year. If Lesnar can beat Cena, Triple H and The Undertaker, I doubt anyone's worried about a loss "hurting" Reigns.
Of course, I'd also like to see Lesnar vs Barnett in UFC before they're too old. Maybe Brock can have two jobs this year. "UFC's not WWE's competition", they say, after all. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
And yeah, UFC is sometimes cool about (limited time) YouTube matches, but WWE has them soundly beat there. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
As for the Rumble winner getting the shaft, Orton beat Mysterio at No Way Out 2006. But then that rascal Teddy Long gave the fans what they wanted. Sort of. He was too small to face Kurt Angle alone. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
And the only thing stopping Lex Luger from winning the belt was telling people he was booked to win the belt. At least according to (old) Wikipedia, which Luger says isn't an encyclopedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm 100% sure Reigns is winning. Even more sure than thinking Taker would beat Lesnar last year. Look at what Vince said on Austin's podcast to see Vince's philosophy. Vince thinks that it's important to give back to the business Vince made the decision for Taker give back in the biggest possible way he could to help someone be a star. But Lesnar was already a star. Vince is clearly planning for someone to get the rub - why would it be part-timer Lesnar for another year? Given that it's not Cena, it's not Rollins, and it's not Bryan, it has to be Reigns. Lesnar is not the culmination.
  • Also, LOL at Luger, and at Rey being too small to fight 6'0 Angle.
  • Josh Barnett? - did you know he does commentary on New Japan's World Pro Wrestling on AXS TV this year? They've screened about five or six one-hour episodes already for matches which happened in 2013. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
While on the subject of NJPW, does anyone remember the name of the guy who was NJ's lead announcer from roughly the late 70s to the early 90s? I recently found a replacement copy of Hard Knocks: The Chris Benoit Story (surprisingly, for a dollar) and noticed his voice on Benoit's NJ matches as Wild Pegasus Kid. I've also heard him announcing Toryumon and Arsion matches. I just don't remember his name. I do, however, remember one of Meltzer's year-end polls, where one reader commented that a native English speaker who understood no Japanese would listen to this guy and conclude that he makes more sense than Gordon Solie (or at that point in time, probably Bill Mercer, too). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe Kotetsu Yamamoto. None of them made a lick of sense to me (aside from "hai"), but beat Michael Cole. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I remember Yamamoto and it wasn't him. He was the bald-headed ref, correct? I know they used him as a color commentator at times, but they did likewise with Inoki, Fujinami and (as Gordon Solie would say) "a host of others". The guy I'm thinking of wore glasses, had curly hair and also had a VERY distinctive voice. He's the announcer on the André vs. Maeda match you link to below. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
My Google-Fu shows that was Yamamoto and Itirou Hurudate. Doesn't ring a bell, but according to CageMatch, I've heard him a lot. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Correction: Look at what Vince said on The WWE Network's Austin podcast. It's not much different than saying the babyface isn't in the arena at the start of RAW to make the crowd pop when he is later. Just "real". Our modern brains can still be swerved.
Do you have a better reason for why Mysterio vs Angle alone wasn't booked? Or why Mysterio's reign basically consisted of him losing non-title matches each week to giants? Or why Davey Boy Smith ended up looking like Lesnar, but started like Bryan?
I did know that. He and Mauro make a great team. Even better than those Toukon Retsuden guys (who have sadly vanished from YouTube, as mysteriously as they appeared). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Just heard Frank Mir call again for the Lesnar rub(ber match) at the post-fight conference. He said it would "catapult his name" and be a "phenom"enal fight. The writing's on the wall: Frank Mir is going to WrestleMania! Reigns can be the ringside enforcer or guest timekeeper or something. Didn't hurt Chuck Norris' reputation. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Or a new spin on UFC 118. People love fish out of water stories. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Or today's Bam Bam vs Kimo, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Oddly enough, Sherdog thinks Mir should fight a former NFL player. Not Lawrence Taylor, but a Lesnar stablemate (of sorts). Is Vince the Higher Power at CraveOnline, too? And does Pat Patterson handle the San Francisco office? Clearly. That only leaves Chicago...now who do we know from Chicago with a vested interest in merging reality and "reality"? Someone with a strong social media presence, who is known for making people go to sleep? Exactly. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, decent read. Though Meltzer seems stuck in the same mindset that what Lesnar gained from stealing Taker's soul can only go to Reigns. If that happens, yeah, they'll have probably burned the streak for nothing. But as of now, Lesnar is still the star. By beating Reigns when so many counted him out, he'll only get hotter.
If I were booking the world, we'd see Cesaro take the belt from Lesnar at SummerSlam, shortly before Mir vs Lesnar III (in UFC, of course). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Obviously, I would have booked Bryan, because as Meltzer said, he's over. IMO, why it's so obvious to me is that Vince does not have faith in anyone else. Every other contender to beat Lesnar has been jobbed out. Cena's already been trounced. Cesaro post-WM breaks my heart. Ambrose was booked like crap against Rollins and Wyatt. Wyatt was booked like crap against Cena and Jericho. Rollins was booked like crap against Reigns and apparently he was pinned this coming SmackDown in a tag match. Leaving Orton and Sheamus ... but I don't really like them - even so, we should have had Brock face them leading to the Rumble instead of Cena. So, so frustrating. Everything's going to shit - Wyatt Family never winning the tag titles and where are Harper and Rowan now? I should just expect WWE to screw everything up. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
There are better things for over guys to do at WrestleMania than get destroyed by Lesnar. The Hurricane helped review the show on The Ross Report, and thinks Ziggler might turn heel, leading to a match with Bryan. That could be a show stealer.
If you don't want to see stars lose starpower, you have to stop watching TV. Without squash matches, they have to squash each other. If you just watch the PPVs, the video package explains pretty much everything you need to know, while making both guys seem strong. Those have been consistently good for almost 20 years.
Watch wrestling you like in the meantime, instead of RAW and SmackDown. Or something entirely different. It's not like you'll forgot who's who after just a month. Well, mostly. I still have no clue what The Ascension was/is supposed to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Good idea. I don't watch Raw or SmackDown. But I read about it from RS. Perhaps I should stop reading as well. I know about Ascension from NXT. They were firstly gothic vampires, then changed their gimmicks to intense bad-asses, then changed their gimmicks again for Raw. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 08:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I only saw whatever they were at Royal Rumble. Sort of like small Powers of Pain. I listen to the wrestling podcasts, and can kind of follow along with the major stories that way. I still haven't seen El Generico in any sort of WWE or NXT ring. What's keeping that guy? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • As for Generico, don't know if you've watched him outside a WWE ring, but Sami Zayn is the best natural babyface since ... Bryan, a future Bryan at best or a future Kofi at worst. Zayn's been the MVP of NXT since his debut. His quest to win the NXT Championship started around August 2013. That storyline's been running in NXT until it culminated in December 2014. I guess it's one reason he hasn't been called up - he's currently owed a match against Kevin Owens in NXT. But Zayn has been touring with the main roster on-and-off since September 2013. He was rumored to be THE BUNNY - lucky I nuked that from his article.
  • WWE's (HHH) answer to your question would be that WWE won't call-up NXT talents without a long-term storyline in place for them. Yet from my estimation many of these storylines are outright failures. (Emma, Bo Dallas, the Ascension, Xavier Woods, Adam Rose) I think only Rusev, Lana, Rollins and Reigns have succeeded. Paige had a very shaky start. Big E has faded into obscurity. The Wyatt Family have been wasted. These are all the NXT products. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been hearing about him. Just haven't seen him wrestle unmasked. Seen his face, though. I should probably start watching NXT someday soon. Sounds like a decent normal wrestling show, to hear Austin tell it. You've been saying it longer than Austin, but it wasn't the bottom line yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Pinged and pung.
Women will get their spot back one day. But never competing for a "Divas" Championship. I don't know if we can blame Vince, because the Trish Stratus (and friends) days were pretty solid. It's the fault of whoever decided WWE had to become generic, mainstream TV around 2008. Michael Cole, probably.
There are eight boobs on the UFC 184 marquee tonight. Not so disappointing when half of Rousey's matches go under a minute. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Fourteen fucking seconds tonight. New record for fastest title fight, any division. Sort of like Bryan's small package counter to the spear, but actually worked. I highly recommend watching the video (or GIF, even). Amazing move!
And Lesnar was looking awfully chummy with Dana White, sitting in the front row. Still, I believe in him at WrestleMania. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I think she's cool, at least on TV. Never met the lady. But she's a huge wrestling fan. "Rowdy" is from Piper and she formed a Kliq, but called it the Four Horsewomen. Arn Anderson thought it was cool, and I think he's cool (at least on TV), so yeah, she's pretty damn cool. The coolest thing is her stable has an undefeated dancing babyface who's picking them off, one by one, on her road to the title.
Like Cornette said, if "sports entertainment" isn't going use the angles, someone may as well. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
For once, one of these FB commenters on a media site actually had something useful to say; namely, have we found the woman who can knock Rousey off of her throne right here? I don't know Aliy Zirkle even though I live somewhere right down the road from her. At least she might have a better shot as a crossover athlete than Paul Ellering did. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
She can't do much worse than the Alaskan fisherman. Against Rousey, I mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I've never watched McKenzie. However, Cordova is one of those places best described as "a quaint little drinking village with a fishing problem". Like most everywhere else, there's not enough government jobs to go around, so you fish. You did see those fucking arms on Zirkle, did you? That's pretty much the only reason I said anything. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, she's got some guns, and not in a sexist way. Also fully loaded is Cristiane Justino, better known as Cyborg. She just has to beat one bantamweight and she's got a title shot. It'll be crazy, and not in a "head-butt your opponent for pulling your hair, spoiling your NBC debut" way. If you watch one Cody McKenzie fight, it may as well be that one. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
And the showdown is official. Good luck, Dusty! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

After this, I would pay to watch a Lesnar-Reigns shoot. Whoever said Brock couldn't talk was lying. On another note... starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"Unfiltered thoughts", eh? Does this mean WWE is acknowledging that Roman Reigns' thoughts go through a committee of writers? And everyone else, too? This is about as confusing as that time Matt Hardy started calling Edge "Adam" and admitting they hadn't really fought before. But cool video package, as always. Brock can talk, but the editing never hurts. Looking forward to whatever happens.
I don't watch trailers, spoof or real, but I'm sure it's OK. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Shame about the latter, Hulk, on missing up to 2:48 of the 3:54. It's not really what it seems to be. About Hardy-Edge, I think I caught their cage match, but missed their actual TV feud. Oh well. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
It was a weird, complicated love triangle, mixed in with a weird, fake complicated love triangle. This quote pretty much sums up all this crap. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
No, that came in the New Year, after Hardy was banished to SmackDown and Edge figuratively fucked Cena out of the title. All WWE history is connected, but more to do with his Cena feud. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I've seen the highlight, haven't watched the whole match. Should I? Volk Han was another of those confusing guys, straddling the shoot/work line, but he's a hero.
There was a reverse Montreal Screwjob in UFC last night. The home countryman won this time, and the promoter played babyface, but close enough. In other Hart news, Horsewoman Baszler had her leg kicked out of her leg. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah you should, even though you've seen the good stuff. This isn't a NJPW 30 minutes main event, it's probably around 11 to 12 minutes. Starts slow but really heats up. Poor refs - [3] often criticized and seldom praised. For leg work matches, a short one was Bryan v Haprer this late SD. A long one would be Tanahashi v Suzuki. 2012, I think, but could be 13 or 14. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Alright, it's on the to-do list. For a kayfabe-bending leg kick match nobody should watch, see Andre vs Maeda. Or don't.
In this ref's defence, earlier in the night, he called the fight well after a guy tapped. Almost went unconscious. In his third and last fight, like Goldilocks, he called the tap just right. But yeah, nobody will remember that. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Huge story! Lesnar's chances exponentially increased. I'm surprised at the number of potential challengers: (Orton, Sheamus, Bryan, Wyatt, Rollins (MITB), Rock, Batista and Cesaro) but concerned that WWE would rather Reigns win than any of them. Who should WWE book to beat Lesnar? 1) Cesaro 2) Bryan, but WWE has no faith in them. Who would WWE book to beat Lesnar, if not Reigns? 1) Rock, but wastes the Streak. 2) Cena?? Also, if Lesnar retains, he'll beat 434 days because WWE hates Punk. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Lesnar's chances are already maxed out. He's goddamn Brock Lesnar. Haven't you been listening to Heyman these past 13 years? Or the guy himself? If you end the streak, squash Cena, win the UFC Championship and marry Sable, you can certainly beat Sika's kid. And if Rollins still has his briefcase, he'll destroy him, too.
I still stand by my Cesaro at SummerSlam prediction. And then Lesnar vs Mir III. Mark my words. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
But yeah, that'll shake up the old "WWE Universe". I think I'll watch SmackDown this week, if it's still on. Got a feeling about that one. Haven't tried since 2010 or so. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Additional edits to Ontario Ombudsman

(Note to any Twitter followers Robby Redpaw may have: Nobody calls on me to remove anything below. It's not even a hidden message, so don't feel stupid if you can't see it. Feel stupid for following Robby Redpaw.) InedibleHulk (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! You have previously made edits to pages related to Ontario. I was hoping you could look at some changes I would like to suggest for the Ontario Ombudsman page. I work at the Ontario Ombudsman's Office; we are an independent office that investigates public complaints in Ontario. Since I work there, my making changes directly may be seen as a conflict of interest. I noted that another user had previously asked you to look at suggested edits, so I wanted to request the same. In the past I have made some edits to the page to correct inaccuracies, but I thought I should seek an independent third party to ensure my edits are acceptable to the Wiki community.

I will make the edits and post them on my personal User page in the coming few days if you're amenable to looking at them. I really appreciate your consideration in this. Thank you in advance. Abursey (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't thank me yet, but I'll take a look. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you...for taking a look. Appreciate that. I'll let you know when something is posted. Abursey (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I notice there was a section attacking you personally for paid promotion in there. That was a bit ironic. I've removed it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
That's quite the edit history on the article today. Again, don't thank me yet. This may be a bigger bite than I can chew. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Understandable. There has been a lot of action on the page in the last few weeks. Thanks for removing that section. Abursey (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Removed another bit saying the same. You and your boss definitely have an enemy. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
We just might. In the interest of full disclosure, I also want to clarify that there is a note in there about me being the recipient of cocktails - that reference is actually from a 2010 story, and I started working for the office in 2011, which is why it's not cited. Abursey (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd just noticed that. I'll get it. I've brought up the article at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Hopefully that helps. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
That's appreciated. Thanks for this, and for your quick responses. I would still like to send you some suggested changes when I have the time in the next few days to put them together, if you're still okay with that. Or if I should direct them elsewhere, please let me know. Abursey (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll still take a look. Might be wise to share with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Good idea. I'll post there too. Abursey (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

And just in case you're interested...Abursey (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice catch. His link's broken. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

We've also noticed similar edits on this page, which is a BLP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/André_Marin Abursey (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I did a fair job cleaning up the "allegations" section there to just say what the sources do. Not nearly what it was cracked up to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts/Ombudsman page

Hi InedibleHulk,

Saw your note about single purpose accounts re editing the OOntario Ombudsman and Andre Marin pages. Both myself Thissilladia (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC) and my partner FriendlyBillingsgate are new to Wikipedia and were not planning on spending so much time on on subject. However, it was so unbalanced, that is where I have ended-up (my partner has had enough and quit Wiki).

In all my editing I have attempted to cite clearly, accurately and copiously. As for the rumour, gossip, etc. edits without citations, or inserts into my edits so it looks like my citations cover their insertions, I have no idea about those.

Thanks for helping to balance these pages and for the helpful notes in your changes. Thissilladia (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You have no idea about this? Where does it say he went to "plead"? Or that the concerns were "serious"? "nonsense that follows follows... the current ombudsman.” is actually "What we want to do without is all the additional nonsense that follows the investigation by the current ombudsman."
That's just the first section. Many more examples of POV and poor grammar there. I suggest you stick with your plan and not spend much time on this subject. Let editors who are interested in neutrality fix the balance problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. FriendlyBillingsgate (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering ...

Hi. I sometimes wonder if anyone has ever actually tried to eat you. Were you a willing participant in this rather intimate culinary event? What part did they choose first? How long did they chew you before determining you were inedible? Were you cooked first, or did they just take a chunk out of your raw body? Were you awake during the meal? Were you served with vegetables, or chips and salad? Did you need medical treatment afterwards? What caused you to become inedible, when the rest of us apparently taste much like chicken? Or is it that you just call yourself InedibleHulk in order to fend off those who view you with slavering mouths and gleeful eyes? How do you know their interest isn't just sexual? (not that that's anything to be downplayed, but it is rather less controversial than human cannibalism). Or maybe their consumption of your flesh was actually part of an interesting new sexual ritual? Have you ever performed culinary masturbation, by eating yourself for the purposes of sexual arousal? So many questions, so little time. If any of this is too personal to share openly, you can always email me.  :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You're a strange man, Jack, and I wish I had a bloody, sexy origin story for you. Sadly, it's more to do with being somewhat big (mainly just tall lately) and having a few opinions the average Jane/Joe refuses to swallow. Never hurts to steal some name recognition, either.
I have been bitten, and I did bleed, but remain optimistic that I can't be wholly devoured. Helps that I've become a stinky hermit these last few years. They don't even try anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I know what that last bit feels like. I reframe it as a blessed relief.  :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Stacking "small"

The obvious next question is whether "big" also stacks. The answer: Yes, it does. That's something we probably don't want getting around, unless we want to make it easier for jerks to out themselves as such (maybe not a bad thing). ―Mandruss ☎ 13:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You almost gave me a heart attack! Well, that or the smoking. I doubt it'll catch on. Idiots never read fine print. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, found the essay relating to this exact topic: WP:BEAN But yeah, any troll worth his or her salt would have figured this out ages ago and its use would have been encouraged in some chan raid or another. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12 Adar 5775 14:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

A kitten threat for you!

Please be careful not to accidentally violate WP:BEAN. Further accidents of this nature will result in this fluffball being removed from your talk page. You're also the first person ever to receive a kitten threat!

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12 Adar 5775 19:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I had a good laugh when I read your plan on the desk. I'm honoured and threatened to be the first. Sadly, I have more cats in my house than there are pictures in the cat article, so this guy won't exactly be missed. I'll still try to not inspire any shenanigans. He's sort of cute. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Wait, no. I underestimated the cat article. It's close, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Just need to figure out a way to do that doesn't get labelled as being uncivil. As for feeling threatened by the above puss-cat, you should feel threatened. VERY threatened. Just look at those eyes boring into your soul. And there's no such thing as too many cats. Also, someone axed the Turkish Van kitten since you linked that, so the count might be spot-on. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16 Adar 5775 22:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately for that cat, I believe photography traps the soul. If he gets too boring, I'll minimize him.
Counting the cats that live in their own cathouse beside mine, I've got that article smoked. Shame about the Van. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

socialiist utopia

InedibleHulk moved my comment and then Itsmejudith left an unsigned comment. I have both reversed the moval and signed the unsignature. If either of you wishes to change this, feel free, but please don't move my comment again; double indenture is the proper method if you wish to add a comment above a prior comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)

It certainly wasn't intentional. Thanks for fixing it, whoever you are. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh. Figures. Hi, nobody! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
That's weird. It definitely seems intentional. But I absolutely don't remember doing it or see why I would have, even accidentally. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It was no big deal, I just preferred to keep the original order (everything is timestamped, in any case) and was providing this notice as a courtesy in case perhaps my restoring the original order of my post had somehow messed up what you wanted to say. μηδείς (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Still a big deal to me, if it's down to blank spaces in my head. If it's just a computer problem, that's much better. I'll pretend it is, and everyone's happy. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Eco footprint

Thanks for improvements you've been doing at Ecological footprint; Lotsa good fixes there, keep it up! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on any more, but maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I meant just generally... there's lots of pages that could use a careful eye! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah. Yeah, I'll get to most of them eventually, and do what I do, temporarily. Keep your own eye out, too! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

WWE Hall of Fame

Does it really matter why the inductees were inducted by a certain person? Including it for every entry seems pointless and just takes up space. Besides, Larry Zbyszko (for example) isn't being inducted by Sammartino because they "Headlined final Showdown at Shea in a steel cage match". It's because he was trained by Sammartino and the two were associated for years before they had their feud which was considered one of the all-time classics and they were good friends. To say otherwise is misrepresentation. Also, let's say you do this for every single entry. Bret Hart was inducted by Steve Austin and the two had an amazing match at WM13. The problem is that this wasn't the only match the two had and Bret Hart headlined 3 WrestleManias and countless other pay-per-views. Why should that one match (as magnificent as it was) be singled out simply because Austin was chosen to induct him? -- Scorpion0422 17:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's the sort of thing a reader might wonder. And yeah, the story that led to the Showdown was important, but I figured the whole thing is too long for a note. Covered in their articles (and a little in the citation), should a reader wonder why that match was special.
I think we'd single out the WM13 match simply because more was written about that one than any other between them. Its enduring significance is why these two remain associated in memory, and why the induction pairing happened. Even those who haven't seen the match have seen the bloody Sharpshooter. It's iconic. Haven't looked, but it's probably prominently noted in the WWE.com source.
We should definitely do it for either all of them or none of them, not just the 2015 crop. Only where I started, to test the waters and because I was actually looking up the inductees. Haven't seen much WWE TV on this Road to WrestleMania. That theme song is unbearable. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not a bad idea in theory, but we do have to keep room limitations in mind. Including the inductors was actually a controversial decision when the list was first being made, so calling too much attention to it would irk some. I think my biggest concern is the can of worms it opens to the point where users who don't understand the reason for the notes would include other big matches and angles. The best way to do it would probably be an individual column, but that would look cramped and take up space. -- Scorpion0422 14:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, there'd be a few hiccups. I think if we were consistent, readers would pick up on the pattern, but we'd still be left with a few confusing matchups. I think Natalya got Madusa this year simply because Trish was busy, Martel and Bertha Faye are dead and Bull Nakano and Chigusa Nagayo aren't English enough. That'd be tough to summarize.
We'll see how others feel. No edit warring from me. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Kayla Mueller

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I still don't know why I'm associated with that, but thanks for the heads up, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

WWE Hall of Fame Warrior Award.

I find it offensive to add Justin Roberts' butt hurt blog on here because he shamed the award and legacy of Ultimate Warrior. He is upset that WWE let him go and stopped including him on festivities held for Connor. I don't mind Connor because everybody has their opinions on that little boy. To give you an example lots of people keep asking why was he picked there are a lots of kids battling cancer. My issue is Justin Roberts got butt hurt so he had to write his blog and accuse WWE of milking Connor's cancer battle. They do a lot for the community and teamed up with the Make a Wish foundation and the Susan B. Komen foundation to help fight cancer. I feel Roberts disrespected Ultimate Warrior in general. I don't know if facebook counts for something but when I mentioned he was butt hurt he banned me from his page instead of giving me a response. His blog does not belong in the WWE Hall of Fame Warrior Award section. Dana Warrior also gave her full support and input when establishing this award at Ultimate Warrior's request.

It's not really Roberts' blog we're adding, it's the reliably sourced secondary coverage of it. It's not our job to consider the asses of people who make things that make news. Whether editors and readers are butt-hurt isn't that important, either. Just notability, verifiability and due weight.
If your only objection is based on your opinion of Roberts or WWE's intentions, it'll do no good. In my own opinion, anyone associated with the Susan G. Komen Foundation is a crook or a sucker, and WWE exploits Make A Wish to build Cena, but I don't mind if those articles say otherwise. Neither should you about this one. It'll just get frustrating. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand all of that I just felt he disrespected Ultimate Warrior so I felt Roberts' input shouldn't be included. It's all good.

It was worth a shot, I guess. Gotta have principles. There's a bigger, better Internet out there to get your voice across, that's all. Never heard of Medium.com, but it's probably going to get a traffic boost from this. Maybe get an account? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Beneil Dariush

Hi, finally someone who tries to solve this the right way. Please see my sections on his talk page (december, a while ago) and (the newer) on ANI. Shmayo (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

First he states "Assyrian American born in Iran" and then "Assyrian nationality...", see ANI above. Here is is also refered to as American. On UFC.com it's also pretty clear that he "Fights Out Of: Yorba Linda, California USA". Shmayo (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
As for the ethnicity and notability, please see this article; "He started working alongside “A Demand For Action”, “it’s a group started by Assyrians from all over the world and a reporter named Nuri Kino...."" "Dariush’s efforts started to garner attention, with the Assyrian Chuch of the East Relief Organization (ACERO) and the Assyrian Aid Society inviting him to participate in telethons. “It was great to be part of that. They brought me in, I was taking calls and was on the show, I spoke on the T.V. It was a live telethon. I brought my t-shirts and they would have deals where you donate so much money you get a signed t-shirt so it was any way we could get people to donate.” The telethons that Dariush participated in would go on to raise over $500,000.". He speaks about this issue in this interview too. Shmayo (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Generic noun

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Generic noun requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the speedier, the better. Just a brainfart. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Before we are both accused of edit warring check the talk page

I think we ought to talk about the revisions and our disagreements on the page's talk page before it is too late. Surely you agree?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#Last_paragraph_of_overview

Iwant2write (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it. Responded. Also previously in an existing section ("IP and newbyt mass removals"). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel

The article Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, like all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict broadly construed, is subject to a one-revert restriction (1RR). You can read more about 1RR here. I encourage you to read about the rules that apply to all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict broadly construed here. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I think I remember running into a bit of trouble with one of these before. No disruption intended, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

How hilarious...

While this Freddie Gray thing rages on and on, I see that the Orioles and White Sox are going to have an "empty arena match", presumably for security reasons. While I don't find baseball to be as boring as many others do, I can't imagine that this could possibly stack up to the original. Speaking of the original, I also noticed that WWE is advertising a forthcoming Lawler DVD set, which includes that match. Somehow, I doubt we'll see "Lance Russell's Baxter suit passed away" or "Jimmy Valiant, I'm gonna go through you like Ex-Lax through a widow woman". There's probably enough out there to put together a DVD set consisting solely of promos. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't even notice there was a Freddie Gray thing. Thought you were talking about a wrestler, but Googled up to speed. At least somewhat. Seems to not be the first time. Ridiculous, though.
I don't remember those quotes, either (not quite "old enough" sometimes), but I do know the match. I've never found Lawler (or the general Memphis style) that much more exciting than baseball. Hopefully this game is at least half as memorable. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Ha! Larry Hogan. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Kids these days don't like anything. At least as far I can tell. Oddly enough, the last Marvel movie I saw was indeed Hulk. It sucked. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Wait, no. I saw the first Iron Man, too. I forget if it sucked. Its article says it didn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Kevin "Owens", eh? I keep telling myself I'm going to start watching more NXT, but something else always comes up first. I hope he triumphs over the forces of evil.
Austin feuded with The Corporation, roughly at the same time. Handicap matches, gauntlets, that sort of thing. Hogan had The Heenan Family, but took them on more individually. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • First thing that came to mind was the Wyatt Family until I read the Wiki page. But those were stables! Owens is feuding with unallied wrestlers. Never seen him in the indies but I'm loving the Owens character. Only weakness seems to be a penchant for chinlocks, but that may be the WWE style. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Depends. If the chinlock looks like two guys resting there, quietly chatting, blame WWE. If they look like they might make a man submit, that means wrestling isn't forbidden. I'd guess it's the first one.
Not sure how one guy can "feud" with unallied guys, but I just looked it up, and it seems Joe's gonna kill him. About time he showed up! I don't want to read anymore till I see it myself now. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah I agree that there's a difference. Cesaro using a chinlock = awesome. Almost everyone else, including Owens = rest hold.
  • It's not hard for Owens though. Needlessly attack best friend Sami Zayn = feud 1. Attack commentator Alex Riley = feud 2. Finn Balor is number one contender, again = feud 3. Hideo Itami laid out in the parking lot with Owens present = feud 4. Continuously disobeying and even attacking GM William Regal = feud 5. Attacking John Cena = feud 6. senor Joe = feud 7.
It's only a feud if they go somewhere with it. Not following closely enough to say for sure, but I know "Itami" is injured and Regal doesn't wrestle. Seven enemies, though. Not too shabby! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Was it an each-way bet at William Hill?

Sorry that the Committee has to miss out on that Royal windfall. By way of sympathy here's a vintage clip for you (- yes that's only 38 years ago - he even had a satchel in those days, bless). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I had to Google "each-way bet". Horses make no sense to me, and I don't get the jokes (Bonanza = Ponder rosa?) But that's an alright tune, so all is well. Nineteen days, John Makdessi is making me rich and the Commonwealth proud by deposing a cowboy. They'll get their oats yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hola!

Watzzaaapening?

How are you?

Long long long time!

Hope you good!!!

Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Mo! Pretty good here. Cheers to whatever's going on there! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Same old thing bro! Can't complain... -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Good to hear. Keep it up! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
-- Mr. Prophet (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Help

Hi. Please your completion fill out this Articles The volleyball team and other players. Development volleyball in wikipedia Are waiting you. Good luck. Jacilason (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The bees are in the what now? A winner is you? All your bases are belong where? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I got one of these, too. I'm also scratching my head. - J man708 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense. Whenever something makes this little sense, it's almost always mass delivered. Usually has some sort of sketchy link to click, though. Not completely seeing the point here, aside from "People are strange." InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever even edited a page to do with volleyball, which is odd. Perhaps we'd both come up in the recent changes list? Either way, your response was lols. - J man708 (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
No, no volleyball for me, either. That part's a mystery. User talk:Trackinfo got the sketchy link, though it isn't that sketchy. Still, I feel left out. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
thanks all friends, I created have a lot of pages, like: Nikolay Pavlov Jacilason (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
That's all well and good. But it doesn't explain what you're asking, or why you asked who you did. Does it? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
improve Players and teams create pages. Jacilason (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I did a little for Pavlov, but that's probably it. Not interested in volleyball. You might want to ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volleyball instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello and thanks

I just want to thank you for your edits on the 2015 Waco shootout article. Several of them look very good to me. I came here to ask if you're interested in editing another article I created, specifically, this article about the recent family murder in Washington, D.C. I took about 30 minutes to create it, and I am pleased with how it turned out, but I think it could use more, so I'm just asking if you'd like to add any new information on the murders, I'd be happy to take the help. Thanks. :) SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I can give it a skim, maybe some grammar tweaks. But I'm really not a builder. Now and then, something will strike me as exceptional, and the Waco thing was one, but I'm just not feeling this murder mystery mansion, for some reason.
Thanks for your work on Waco, too. I like the cut of your jib. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, Washington's much more concise now. The only substantial bit I cut was about the perp(s)' motives for ordering pizza. If they'd intended anything else with it but the usual, that'd be the notable thing.
Good stuff, though. Bit of an odd story, with potential to get much weirder. I think you're on your own from here. Well, aside from any other Wikipedians. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Victor the Wrestling Bear

Hello there, I had a question about Victor the Wrestling Bear that I thought maybe you knew the answer. I am trying to add Victor to the "List of individual bears" page for now (hopefully me or someone else will eventually write an article on him, there is certainly no shortage of source material). I understand Tuffy Truesdell had 2 Victors, an elder Victor who was actually a dark-furred Alaskan brown bear (i.e. grizzly bear) and a younger Victor who was a 700-pound black bear and Tuffy also took that one around to schools, etc. (Based on my admittedly basic knowledge of bear species, I can't imagine anyone taking a grizzly to visit a room full of school kids, but a black bear would probably be OK for that task, they tend to be fairly docile as long as you don't do anything stupid like pet them.) Apparently they both wrestled and the younger Victor was the one who bit off a guy's finger once near the end of his wrestling career.

So, here's my questions: 1) When and how did both Victors die? All I can find is that the authorities decided NOT to euthanize Victor the younger for the finger incident because they decided they didn't have legal jurisdiction or something.

2) I also read that one of the Victors died before a scheduled match and because lots of tickets had been sold, a guy in a bear suit filled in and wrestled that night. Which Victor was this and when/ where was the match? The story I read from a book left those details out.

If you have any info let me know...otherwise I imagine I will get to looking it up someday but it would be helpful to know in adding Victor to the bears page. Thanks! TheBlinkster (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a whole lot to spring on a guy while he's already trying to investigate The Karate Kid's (possibly) mysterious connections to the NYPD, but I'll make like a bear over a mountain and see what I can see. Might have to wait till tomorrow. I don't really remember that much about Victor (or Victor), offhand. But yeah, Ted had a murky end (and possible other namesake), too. Bears are weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
No problem! I'm not in any hurry. I did find a Deadspin article that seems well researched saying the original Victor died of a heart attack at 17 in the mid-70s, which fits because I have an interview with the Truesdells from 1973 saying Victor is 15. So now I'm just wondering what happened to Victor II. I read somewhere that Terrible Ted died of natural causes sometime before the whole Smokey-kills-girlfriend incident but the source wasn't good enough to be authoritative. Would make sense though since they usually die between about 15 and 25, of course he could have been into his second or third Ted by then. Anyway, no rush at all, I just figured you probably read more wrestling books than I do.TheBlinkster (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
No, Ted was taken by the Humane Society after Smokey had his bad day. And then the trail goes cold. Some say they both escaped back to their respective home planets, unharmed. Maybe not.
As far as I see, there was just one Ted, following the quite dubious Galento matches and hiatus. I'll probably never know who that bear was. Or if Ralph Macchio is an undercover cop.
I know more about wrestling than you, but wrestling bears were largely before my time and far away. Almost mythical. I rely on the Internet, and it's missing a bunch. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the thanks :) DuncanHill (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to make IPs feel welcome. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking up for me.82.28.140.226 (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't mainly for you, but for the general idea of people being allowed to choose their own words. At least outside of article space. In articles, where it looks like Wikipedia itself is talking, I'm way less tolerant. As long as someone signs a post (even with a dynamic or spoofed IP), it works like a "views expressed don't reflect" disclaimer.
But yeah, you're welcome. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Aboutness

(Continued here so as to not further derail the ref desk thread) You know, Tolkien stated adamantly several times that WWII had absolutely no effect on LOTR/Hobbit, and that there was in in no way any allegory there (essentially, I didn't look up the interviews before posting this). But I still don't buy it. I don't think you can see many of your closest friends die and your country bombed for years and not have that affect your writing. He can deny allegorical intent, but he can't deny that an allegorical reading is there. We're also talking about a guy who wrote an entire children's book about the editorial panel of the OED (Farmer Giles of Ham see also here [4] where he basically says that he can't/won't write fun light-hearted stories anymore because "the woods and plains are aerodromes and bomb-practice targets"). So we know he can lay down one thing that looks like another without any problem at all. Hence, we're at a bit of an impasse - we can't believe him, but we can't disbelieve him either. The way out, IMO, is to distinguish content and aboutness from intent.

Authorial intent, in my mind, is not the sole determiner of what something is about, it's only the sole determiner of intent. As you know, things can come out sometimes that we didn't really intend... As for Puff, probably the only thing keeping me from putting it in the same category as LOTR allegory is that I haven't yet read the poem that it was based upon. And anyway, if they wanted to make a song with veiled drug references, they'd have done a much better job. Or maybe not, depends on you feel about the line from I Dig Rock and Roll Music - "But if I really say it, the radio won't play it/ Unless I lay it between the lines."

As for aboutness, our article doesn't really do it justice, I can probably dig up a better read on that if you're interested. As I understand the term, it is much broader than the notion of subject, and probably necessarily more flexible. For instance, this song is about more than its subject [5], right? SemanticMantis (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I hear you about intent. The picture of a bird that made me think of a little bird was just a wavy line when that thing was carved. Times change, and outside forces do their thing. Perception is reality. In Puff's case, it used to be more about drugs, despite the authors, but now the collective illusion has flipped.
I read Lord of the Rings and saw the movies, but very little of it stuck with me. Far too little to ponder on it. I remember a bit on Sesame Street where a cow misheard the lyrics as "sweeping the cows away" and got pissed, till Grover (or maybe Elmo) explained the aboutness. No need to explain general aboutness to me any further, I get the gist. But yeah, sort of interesting. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Category:Articles that have a lot of aboutness. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Another one from the "so wrong, it's right" category

Behold. "The only vinyl record with a health warning and the only double B-side", indeed. I think the last time I ever heard this was in the vicinity of two or three decades ago. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That sort of sound either hasn't aged well or can't fully cross the pond, but I made it halfway through. Sometimes I wish I'd have seen Street during the day, in "simpler times". Not so shocking when I discovered him on the Internet around 2000. The Internet of 1999 had jaded me.
Fucking timeless arrogance, though! Even the Divinyls girl had to think of anybody else before putting on the old coal miner's glove. But I doubt Street even bothered learning Miss Linda's last name. Good, despicable stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the song is probably nowhere near as "precious" as, say, some of the musical endeavors of Jerry Lawler and Jimmy Valiant down in Memphis. I'm not sure how to compare it to "The Legend of Chavo Guerrero", though. When I found the aforementioned clip, I was also able to revisit the moment on Mid-South Wrestling when Terry Taylor came out to do everything he could to Miss Linda in front of the cameras short of actual penetration, with Street responding by taking it out on her rather than on him. That was funny to see again.
Speaking of Memphis, here's a wrestling DYK you'll never see: Did you know Lance Russell and Dave Brown were co-workers of Rick Dees at the time of the latter's success with "Disco Duck"? Seriously, it appears that Russell and Brown have been more active with wrestling-related endeavors during the past year than they've been since about the early 1990s. If this means that Lance is going into the HoF anytime soon (and for fuck's sake, I hope it's soon, considering how close he is to 90), I just may attend a WrestleMania specifically to see that. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever heard Lance Russel mentioned on WWE TV (and rarely on DVD or online), so if I had to bet, I'd say he dies before getting in the Hall. But I don't remember Abdullah the Butcher being acknowledged until he was announced, either, so maybe.
That's indeed a Fun Fact on Dees, and yeah, reminds me there's a lot of awful music out there. Not ashamed to admit Disco Duck was my first album, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Or wait, no. It was Mickey Mouse Disco. Thought that song was on there, but I was confused with "Macho Duck". Dig it? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Oooooh yeahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!! Lance is featured in roughly a half-dozen short interview clips in the documentary portion of the Lawler DVD, as well as being the voice announcing most of the pre-WWF matches on the other discs. Lawler also brought him out to once more say "Hello again, everybody!" to the Memphis crowd during the Raw taping this past September 22, though I doubt that it made the air.
Speaking of the Lawler DVD: the mention of promoter Aubrey Griffith in Lawler's article has long troubled me, but I didn't do anything about it because I really didn't have Clue One about the guy. All I knew is that it merely parrots the Slam Wrestling source while providing zero additional context, in the process potentially misleading readers into believing that Griffith was the promoter in Memphis rather than Nick Gulas. It's just a bit more complicated than that. The story Lawler gives in the DVD is that Griffith promoted outlaw shows in West Memphis, and put Lawler in the main event in his very first match for the sole reason being that Lawler had a radio show on KWAM ("The Mighty Nine-Ninety") at the time, which he used to promote Griffith's endeavors.
I don't think I've ever heard Mickey Mouse Disco, but I have heard The Ethel Merman Disco Album released that same year. If you have a half hour or so of your life to waste, it may be good for a few laughs. Oh hell, even Aretha Franklin released a disco album that year, which was about as disastrous. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
That's precisely the DVD I was thinking of. Maybe the only one.
Wikipedia is generally confused when it comes to territories. Along with crediting outlaws for running regions, it also refers to NWA affililiates (past and present) as "the independent circuit". It's one of those things I've written off as too widespread to worry about fixing. I've never heard of Aubrey Griffith, either.
If you have no nostalgic connection to Mickey Mouse Disco, I don't recommend it. "Watch Out for Goofy" seems a bit good to me, but that may just be my memory overcompensating. Never heard of Ethel Merman, at all. Might waste some time on her. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I've confirmed it still makes me tap my foot. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd thought Magic Mike was about Michael Jordan. I'm still hip enough to know Ethel Merman isn't about Mer-Man, but not cool enough to have checked her out yet. Soon! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Y u mad at Rand Paul

(→‎Reactions: Not buring him for being a Paul, just because he had nothing to do with the city.) InedibleHulk, y u remove my Rand Paul edits when two other presidential candidates' comments are already included? He has polled higher than both in various polls. Or do you only care what a Clinton or a Bush has to say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.95.187.124 (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about any of them. If I had to pick one of the three to lead America, it'd be Paul. But that's not the point. The point is he had nothing to do with Charleston. Clinton was there that day, and Bush cancelled his visit there. Paul was just talking in Washington, as politicians normally do.
His reaction was also relatively huge, in terms of space. If we're going to give anyone extra weight, it should be someone with some relevance. Though, as Reaction sections tend to do eventually, this will be split into sections, and Paul would fit in the Political one, in about as many words as the rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism

I'm commenting here so as not to continue cluttering up the talk page with a discussion of what is or isn't terrorism, but if you accept that Roof had an ideological motive (i.e., advancing white supremacy), and (assuming this is accurate) deliberately left a survivor alive to tell the world what had happened, I genuinely don't understand how you can dispute that the Charleston shooting was an act of terrorism. Dyrnych (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I accept that he had an ideological motive, but it was killing black people, and he accomplished that. Whether there's some wider aim isn't clear, and certainly not clear by that story you linked. Even if this person exists, what does wanting her to tell what happened prove, besides wanting her to tell what happened? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The ideological motive is exactly the point. Ideological motive intent to create fear disregard for/violence against civilians = terrorism. Each element is present here. Dyrnych (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The factors are right, but the formula's a bit off. Terrorism is violence against civilians with the intent to create fear which furthers (or was meant to further) an ideological motive. Everyone who intentionally kills anyone has some idea driving them, even the insane. It needs to be the fruit of an act, not the root.
For instance, say I believe in freedom. If I'm locked up somewhere, and this motivates me to kill my jailer in a disgustingly vile fashion so I can escape, I'm no freedom fighter, just fought for my own personal freedom. But if I believe in freedom for all, I'll need a wider aim. Say I sneak into a warden's house at night, and gas him peacefully in his sleep, then tell the other wardens to open the gates or they get the same, that's hardcore freedom fighting, because even an easy death is fucking terrifying for many people. If they refuse and simply kill me, I'd still die having attempted the crime.
Same goes here. If buddy believed blacks are here to cause trouble for whites, as alleged, he could still reasonably just be protecting (in his mind) his own. But if that supposed woman he spared to deliver a message (or he does it himself, now that he realizes he wasn't shot by cops) says the message warned of further shootings until all blacks leave America, that's fucking terrifying to a wider population, too. I haven't heard one way or the other on that, because it's not public knowledge yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

static

Thx for the point Hulk ;-) And yes you are right, I appreciate George: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rh6qqsmxNs . Bye --91.10.39.5 (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

He was a good guy. Just to be clear, only deleted it so somebody else with this IP later doesn't get confused. Already more confused people on Earth than truly stupid ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
You are right. It's a wonderful Earth, ☮ & ♥ --91.10.39.5 (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Though a strange place to visit. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Morrison is so sexyyy! Can no longer think clearly ;-) But strange place are _the best_. People are lovely when you're a stranger. I know it. My whole life I am stranger, with a strange taste, in strange places. Want a little prove? My children's songs. --91.10.39.5 (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Reminds me a bit of my childhood hero/villain. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Ups, our childhood heroes were villains ;-) I knew right away something was wrong with you. ;-) ;-) In my musical gift that (uncommon utterly compelling countertenor) voice is picking on someone's bad habit:

  • E o que me importa é não estar vencido - [e daí]
  • What matters to me is not being won - [so what]

I was gently rebembering me/us of that bad habit... The magic of Secos & Molhados is how they wove texts of important poets like Cassiano Ricardo, Manuel Bandeira, Solano Trindade and Vinícius de Moraes into song lyrics. Maybe you're right again. There is something very Japanese in that makeup from wrestler Keiji Mutoh & bard Ney Matogrosso. Noh & Kabuki. Japan is my marvellous dreamland of culture and aesthetics, where embracing fantasy in everyday life is acceptable. Traditional culture and urban subcultures, traditional arts & crafts and high tech, architecture, gardening and the well-mannered people. And the food. The food. I love Washoku (traditional Japanese home cuisine) & my Wabocho (traditional style kitchen knives)... à propos, there's one song for Japan/Hiroshima on that first legendary album: A Rosa de Hiroxima, Vinícius de Moraes, Rio de Janeiro, 1954. A pacifist and antinuclear poem.

There is so much to love in Japanese culture, it even developed the Art of Peace between the both World Wars. Aikido - the Art of Fighting without Fighting, not being competitive, a way of life shaped by Morihei Ueshiba. Aikido uses the dynamic forces of geometry, bio-mechanics and mental & spiritual cultivation to create a unique examination of confrontations of all kinds. The Essence is to accept the spirit of the universe, keep the peace of the world, correctly produce, protect and cultivate all beings in nature. The Essence of Aike is love. My cup of sophistication, ☮ & ♥ --91.10.43.139 (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Presidential candidate comments on Charleston church shooting

Since you commented in the discussion at Talk:Charleston church shooting, I invite you to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Presidential candidates reactions to the Charleston church shooting. Thanks, Reywas92Talk 00:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

A strange subject for an encyclopedia. Thanks for the laugh. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Eric Garner#15 seconds

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Death of Eric Garner#15 seconds. Thanks. Pishcal — ♣ 21:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Why? But OK. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I remember now. I don't want to get back into this crap, but gave my almost two cents. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

2012 Aurora Shooting

Hey. I just noticed the comment you made on the talk page thread, and it makes a whole lot more sense than Ianmacm (talk), who seems to think wikipedia should help support mainstream media.. I am treading cautiously as I add, because 98.207.226.90 (talk) is liable to delete all adds. Since you have more experience than me, is there any reason I should avoid amending the conspiracy section as I have indicated I believe serves the article best? Thanks Ferociouslettuce (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Not support mainstream media, reflect it. And not just the shady, 24-hour part. Mainstream academia is cool, too. Infowars and its ilk aren't cool. Yes, they're occasionally right, but in a "throw enough crap at the wall, some will stick" way.
Try to keep WP:NPOV in mind when editing about conspiracy stories. Reflect those, don't support them. The way you lean is apparent, and it shouldn't be, in Wikipedia's voice. Stop pushing to transform the whole article to hint at a second shooter. That's bullshit. But that some people said it may not have been, in the fog of things, is a fact. Just the facts, please. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
good advice. thanks Ferociouslettuce (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


16th St.

Intriguing argument indeed. I've left a reply on my page. I genuinely sympathize with either classification or non-classification but it seems this is a grey area. Regards--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying my best to not sympathize with anything, but now that we've got two sources calling it terrorism and a fairly convincing rationalization behind it, it seems OK. Just the old sources suck. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
That reference is valid, but, I won't lose sleep if you insist on its removal. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
And if you'd explain how it's valid, I wouldn't insist. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It'd also be nice to hear what "Structure. Chronological context" has to do with readding wordiness. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure. A report in of that nature is a compilation of findings. It is a statement of what professional individuals say are their findings. As for structure, to take one example only: Cochran said many things throughout the trial: in his profession, he states/says many things in his closing argument to the jury. In the sentence in question, there are many things outlined which he said to the jury, before he "also added" the info. in question in that closing argument.

This is of course all putting aside what seems to be consensus among the thousands of people who have read this article over the prv. months. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If we say someone says something, then immediately say he says something else, it goes without saying that he "also added" it. I'll disagree that reports don't say things, but letting it slide, you also readded "stated" to individual people, despite stressing they say things.
Silence is not consensus, generally. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a matter of opinion. I agree silence isn't consensus. Some edits you've made are for the better (no I'm not massaging your ego). You seem to be focusing on several articles at once, however.
Things lead to other things, especially when people keep bringing up WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as reason for keeping things that shouldn't stay. It creates a lack of focus, if anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
What was I supposed to see on my talk page that explains all this? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Charleston church shooting. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges.

Please obtain consensus on these categories rather than trying to "force through" your edits; several editors have disagreed with your assessment on the talk page. VQuakr (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

And I've been trying to set them straight, through discussion. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Cool! Quit edit warring while you do so. VQuakr (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
You, too. And pay attention. Saying things like "no one contests that this event was murder regardless of whether the accused is found guilty" makes you sound like you're ignoring the contest. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I meant the sources, though of course no other editors really agree with you, either. Compare with a case where there was doubt whether a murder occurred - a disappearance, for example. That might be a case where tagging the event as a "murder" was unsupportable. VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
So, in your opinion, a man found legally insane during a killing commited a murder? Both articles on those topics disagree with you, yet it's still "obvious" Holmes is a murderer to you. And don't say we're not referring to a specific person, when that article calls him the sole suspect. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
So, in your opinion, a man found legally insane during a killing commited a murder? No, but a person killed by a legally insane person was murdered. Murder has a common English meaning that is distict from the noun meaning a crime: An act of deliberate killing of another being, especially a human. So in your example, the people in the theater were definitely murdered, regardless of whether the accused is ever found to be a murderer. VQuakr (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It's the deliberate part that's in question in this trial. If he was schizo at the time, he may have thought he was popping pinatas (or some other delusion), not killing people. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Which still would not change the categorization of the event. VQuakr (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how it couldn't. Thiefs make thefts, jaywalkers make jaywalkings and insane killers make insane killings. How would a murder occur if the only killer isn't a murderer? The thing and the doer are inextricable. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
No, the word "murder" has two distinct meanings which makes it distinct from the examples you just gave. VQuakr (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
According to the dictionary you linked, there are five meanings. If you're saying the "act" one is distinct from the "crime" one, no. They have the "deliberate killing" in common. If the actor isn't deliberate, the act can't be. If the criminal isn't deliberate, the crime can't be. Might be fair to say getting gang-pecked by crows is "getting murdered", even if nobody dies. But this clearly isn't about crows. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Of the five, only the first two are remotely applicable (obviously). The crime is a different concept than the act. VQuakr (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Merriam and Webster: "the crime of deliberately killing a person"[6] ―Mandruss ☎ 07:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Wiktionary: The dictionary anyone can edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
WordCentral: Merriam's well-meaning brother, who introduces children to murder. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Anywayz ... isn't this a question that should have one answer applied site-wide in articles involving killings, pre-conviction? Is this really a matter for local discussion? If we don't already have community consensus, I think we should go get it. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
That's what we said at the BLP board, too. That seems like the peak of this, to me. Should open an RfC there, and list it under every category, for every eye in the Wikiworld (the overseeing and the understanding). Not it! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Not it either! I just work here! ―Mandruss ☎ 08:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
At least we've figured out a system for narrowing down candidates. Last one out pokes the beehive! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on 2012 Aurora shooting. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. "My case"!?. Oy. Read up on policy more before you continue editing, please. VQuakr (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to talk to me like it's my first day here, with these templates. It just takes up space.
Exhibit knowledge of the relevant policies, and I won't have to explain them to you. VQuakr (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I can tell you a guideline is not a policy, and assuming good faith only relates to hurting/helping an article.[citation needed] I don't think you're trying to hurt the article, I just think you're angry at me. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:EW is policy. VQuakr (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yep. And assuming good faith isn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
And WP:EW is policy. DisuseKid (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you stupid? Which one are these replies under? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Ha ha. Insulting people will get your argument nowhere. :P DisuseKid (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Those were questions, not insults, and have nothing to do with my argument about murder. Just genuinely wondering if you're stupid, or had some other reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DisuseKid (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
And I'm the butt-hurt one, right? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Your choice of words, regardless of intent, are NOT to be tolerated. DisuseKid (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, fuck off and you won't have to. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Stupid bitch. DisuseKid (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I just think you're butt-hurt. DisuseKid (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
This made Reddit, for some reason. Whoo? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WWF Light Heavyweight belt.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WWF Light Heavyweight belt.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Don't know why it was removed from WWF Light Heavyweight Championship, but I put it back. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cremation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ash. 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) 11:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ann Rule

I think it's this: [7] he's referring to. It took me a while to find it too. Connormah (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, a Facebook graphic slapped on an existing picture. That's reliable. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Ann Rule's date of birth

Hi. I'm new to joining in on discussions and editing a Wikipedia page. I would never do so if I did not in fact know an edit is warranted. I would appreciate some help in this matter. I did not mean to post a debate publicly if I had. I would like to be in the know of a senior member as I believe I am in fact correct about an issue of an "edit war". Thank you so kindly :) Robyn MacEachern (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've helped as much as I can, for now. Like I said, sometimes the best course is compromising, waiting and attacking weaknesses in the other side's argument. In this case, we're waiting for a proper obituary to tell it like it is. Probably shouldn't have to, but another editor insists. All a part of playing nice. The truth usually prevails sooner than later, but Wikipedia can be weird about truth, since we're officially after verifiability foremost. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ann Rule's date of birth pics

Hi I have some screen shots showing validity of Ann Rule's date of birth. How would I send these to you to show validity of my editing the page? Thank you kindly! :) Robyn MacEachern (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Can't do that, if you mean via birth certificate or something similar. We (generally and especially in biographies) need our info to come from secondary sources (newspapers, journals, that sort of thing). We've already got The Los Angeles Times and others saying what you and I are saying. We shouldn't have to wait, but it's the nice thing to do. It won't likely be long. If you feel like sending the pictures to a news outlet, we could use whatever they make of it (if anything), but probably more trouble than it's worth. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ann Rule's date of birth again

Hi. I won't edit anymore. This person is obviously on a huge power trip weilding his authority around and has had the page locked down by somebody else. I don't understand why people can't edit the page with full knowledge they are correct on an issue. He obviously had the need to be right or politically correct. I will keep my account open but I will never again attempt to edit the pages as I now see the Hell a person can get for attempting to do so. I appreciate your stepping up and attempting to see my point in the matter. I don't see how it was an issue in the first place; over an author's birth year. Good God. Never again will I try to edit a Wikipedia page. Thank you so much :) Robyn MacEachern (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedians are a diverse group. Certainly not as diverse as the real world or The Real World, but enough to ensure you'll find constructive synergy in some places and petty squabbles catching fire in others. Sometimes, they're both at once. It'd be boring if we always knew what to expect.
But yeah, a bad first trip can be discouraging, especially if you're used to constant efficiency. I suggest trying again somewhere else later and seeing how it goes. It's your call, of course. No shame in having better things to do with your time.
If you happen to use my talk page again, try to keep related stuff in one section. Not a huge deal, just tidier. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Robyn MacEachern: don't understand why people can't edit the page with full knowledge they are correct on an issue - In a nutshell, the reason is that many people have full knowledge they are correct on an issue, and yet are incorrect. Not saying that's you, but we have to have one set of rules for all. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Roddy Piper

Hi. We were both working on the Roddy Piper entry at the same time. I tweaked it so that it referenced his work in the NWA and WCW, bith which were very significant to his career. (I grew up watching him Wrestle in Portland, OR in the 1970s). I fixed his entry so that it matched the format of the Dusty Rhodes entry (June 11). Doing this allows for just the one mention of "Hall of Fame", however I went back and checked and the Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame is not included in any entries of past deceased wrestlers including Rhodes and Verne Gagne, who also died this year. It is unfortunate as this I believe is more prestigious than the WWE Hall-of-Fame which basically is an empty honor and often used as a marketing tool.

Piper entry: Roddy Piper, 61, Canadian Hall of Fame professional wrestler (WWE, NWA, WCW) and actor (They Live, Hell Comes to Frogtown, Body Slam), heart attack.

Rhodes entry: Dusty Rhodes, 69, American Hall of Fame professional wrestler, booker (NWA, WCW, WWE) and promoter (TCW), kidney failure.

Your thoughts? (By the way, have you given up on Douglas Cook? I hope not.) BurienBomber (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I just shared my thoughts in an edit summary. Tweaked a bit more. Probably should do this for Rhodes and Gagne, too. Like you say, you watched him in Portland. That work counted toward his general wrestling Hall of Fame status. Significant stuff. Dude had a long career. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
And I hadn't realized Cook still had a problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Saw your change and I think it is great. Could you be so kind as to fix the Dusty Rhodes and Verne Gagne entries so they match this format? And yes, Cook was changed back again (sigh). BurienBomber (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Done, done and done. I'd bet money Cook will come undone again. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Very true about Cook. I also bet one of Piper's acting credits gets switched out for some minor voice acting role. BurienBomber (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hope not. Speaking of betting, if Bethe Correia runs the Four Horsewomen gauntlet tomorrow, the "biggest upset in UFC history" will be even more upsetting.
I wouldn't count on it, but at those odds, wouldn't hurt to place a little on the underdog. They laughed at Piper when he said he'd make it, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Well RAP changed the Piper HOF entry without any comment, so I put it back with comments and also a note on his talk page asking for him to discuss it instead of just unilaterally changing, without comment, the collaboration of 3 editors. We will see what happens. BurienBomber (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is something. Talking shit about me behind my back, as if I edit to be an asshole specifically to you two or something. Is this a new Justice League or something? You two band together to double up and revert my edits if you disagree with me? You want civility with me, I can give civility, but not if this type of crap is going on.

To address some things:

  • 1. I didn't delete or subsitute anything on Piper. Simply moved his Hall of Fame status to where you'd commonly see it on a someone's entry. See James Garner and Jean Bellieavu. It's not me being picky or rearranging it to what I want, it's just how i've seen it done. I wasn't aware of the discussion considering it took place in edit summaries and other people's talk pages.
  • 2. Cook's contribution to Criminal is yet to be known how much an impact it would have on his career. The Rock and Double Jeopardy have had years to establish his screenwriting contribution. Criminal could be a bomb and never be talked about again. We don't know. There's still time to determine that. There's no rush. I reverted due to this, as well as it being reinserted in a slightly broken fashion.
  • 3. Let's address that "minor voice acting credit" remark, obviously referencing Goerge Coe. Archer is an Emmy-nominated show that Coe voiced a main recurring character on for 4 of it's six seasons, totaling 25 episodes. That's not "minor voice work".

It's no secret I come off as generally annoyed or pissed off about something. It's because I scarcely feel like i'm in a collaborative atmosphere. People act as if i'm an unregistered Ip coming in and writing "Justin Bieber sucks dicks" on his page. I get treat like an asshole, so over time I started acting like an asshole. It doesn't mean I don't want to discuss or collaborate. But if this is going on, where i'm being talked about behind my back and being assumed to be editing things to what I like, it's going to make discussing and collaborating with people who don't seem to like me that much harder. Rusted AutoParts 18:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

1) You did alter Piper's Hall of Fame entry as your edit deleted the Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame, leaving only the WWE Hall of Fame mention.
2) My remark was not specifically about Coe, but about you entire history of favoring voice acting credits. At least the Coe credit was a major role. I never tried to delete it. It was the removal of his Oscar nominated short film that I objected to. BurienBomber (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
1. I was attempting to determine which had more impact over Piper. Surer, the Pro Hall of Fame covers more outside of WWE, but Piper's entire career pretty much circled WWE.
2. I try to diversify the credits added, should an actor be known for several forms of acting. In cinema, or on stsage, or on television, or on an animated program. Voice acting is acting as well. Rusted AutoParts 18:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Piper went fifteen years, and ten good ones, before joining the WWF full-time. He's also rather famous for knocking the company for the way it treats/kills the wrestlers. It doesn't suit a death notice to just mention the one Hall, and is almost disrespectful to pipelink "Hall of Famer" to the WWE one, implying no other exists, when the other was actually built (with bricks and whatnot). They're both important, in different ways.
And I'd thought I'd always been polite enough with you when we argue. I often think your ideas aren't good, but it's nothing personal. I can tell you're not here to ruin things, like a real asshole. If anything, you're a challenge to explain things to, and yeah, that sounds like an insult, but it isn't.
Speaking of Cook's film again, audiences generally don't come out of a theatre caring about the screenwriter. If it's a good/profitable movie, they rave about the actors and director, and if it sucks/bombs, same deal. Whatever the case, with that cast and today's Internet, it'll be talked about, especially more than his other two (the unmentionable two, not the big two) ever have been. I'll seriously bet you ten thousand dollars on that. With writers and virtually everyone else behind the scenes, the notable act is done when the film wraps. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Murray Maxwell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression. 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) 09:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingscliff

Hi! The source that you quote ("The Tweed Shire council is working against the clock to finish erosion protection works that will hopefully save the surf club" That' certainly suggests a current problem.) is 5 years old. Thankfully the surf club was saved and is under no threat. I have no strong feelings about the wording of the sentence, but I think it suggests that beach is currently eroded. Anyways, I leave it in your capable hands. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless unerosion exists, something that wears down doesn't wear back up. So it's still been eroded, forever, even if coutermeasures now exist. I realize the source was a bit old, but also don't feel strongly (just heard the place existed), so wasn't about to track down a newer source. It would be nice to teach readers how the club was saved. Did they just tell the sea to stop? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Basically, the storm just stops and the threat ceases. Then some sand is pumped onto the beach and things are mostly back to normal. Of course, the cycle repeats when there is another major storm.Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
This looks like a job for a 500-foot tall wall of ice, magically imbued and guarded by convicts. Since Australia lacks ice and magic, and isn't technically a penal colony anymore, they went with a smaller concrete one. Noted this (the plan, at least) in the article. We'll be up to date one day, at this rate. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank you for participating in the mass effort to improve Roddy Piper's article so it could be featured on the main page as an RD. We did it! starship.paint ~ KO 01:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I barely did a thing, next to you busier folk, but thanks, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Howdy

I still think your signature is ugly, but I enjoyed reading your commentary on ANI. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think your name is ugly (needs more consonants), but you write well, too. I've had far more hideous opponents here. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Haha, if only you knew my real name! Later, Drmies (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
You should consider running for admin. Well, I mean, you don't have to, but you could. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, I blocked your sock. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Impossible. I don't even know what "24 May" means. He's one of your people. Or he crawled out of my mirror when I wasn't looking, Candyman style. Or Bloody Mary style, if Candyman is merely a Spacehog song in your locale. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I unlearned my BE a long time ago, and my people have all left me. So Radiohead are overrated pricks? (The comments on YouTube count as a reliable source these days, I believe.) I've never heard of this band, so thanks. As for Candyman, I had to look it up on Wikipedia. Very useful source. Apparently the success rate at RfA is 30% this year, so if you run and you don't make it you can always blame fate. If you do want to consider it, we need to have a talk about this wrestling shit, which is very unbecoming for an admin. We already have a soccer fan, and that's bad enough. (GS, what do you think of this Hulkster? Ever pick a fight with 'em? They wrote some articles, and they said at least one nice thing about me. Kudpung, how do the parameters look?) Drmies (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd announced my intentions to run in 2020, while Wikilawyering something for an accused IP troll, and trying not to rock the (potential) boat. My client lost his case (twice), and I can't remember his name (started with a two-digit number). His talk page seems to have been expunged from history; I tried to cite the case/announcement. I think I'm still bound to the 2020 date, though, because I said it in public.
Politicians shouldn't lie. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
And professional wrestling is everything anybody ever needs to know about politics. Always has been, but now it's official. Trust me. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, robot. Took me a while to process that, but you're right. 1988 is not equal to 1989. You'd think a computer could have solved that quicker, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Norman Fell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spin-off. 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) 09:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

See? You should have been watching for Mr. Roper peeking through the window before you did anything. Now you got yourself into another mess, Jack, and Chrissie isn't around this time to get you out of it! RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe if I'd ever watched a full episode of that show, I'd have known better. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Ya gotta love Google Translate

This is how it described the early career of Yoshiaki Yatsu, upon returning from his excursion in the United States:

The Scrape the excess meat squeezing the body, when you return home to become Horny, 1983 in Choshu force led by " Restoration Army to enter the ", it has been attracting attention as a young samurai of the Meiji Restoration Army.

Okay then. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 10:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll bet Gran Naniwa's story turns into full-on tentacle erotica. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Nah, the best I could find there was the ring name "maple buns Ichiro". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 13:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
That's pretty good, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Angel

Your recent contributions look constructive except for this one, which looks like petty vandalism. Can you explain what you intended there? Thanks, alanyst 04:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Never mind, I misread the diff in light of your edit summary, and thought you had dropped the "i"; hence the "vandalism" remark, which I now retract. Apologies. alanyst 04:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If its name was Moron Angel, it shouldn't be ashamed, either. But no, it isn't. Honest mistake, all good. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Flanagan's video

I've replied here to avoid WP:NOTAFORUM. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, Flanagan's estate owns the copyright on the video. Whether anyone is interested in enforcing it is another matter. WP:NFCC is strict and does not allow arguments like "the copyright holder won't mind" etc. Flanagan uploaded the video to Twitter and Facebook, which would have given them some licensing rights for commercial use.[8] If Flanagan had been really smart, he would have uploaded the video to Commons and made it public domain. Also, he could have posted his suicide manifesto online instead of sending it as a fax. As a result, it is not possible to read the full 23-page document, only the extracts that the media has decided to publish.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Good call on the forum. This is just my curiosity, nothing to do with whether Wikipedia can host it. Thanks for the general info. And yeah, not the most rational publication decision, but in light of the far worse mistakes he made that day, can't really blame him for that oversight. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Permission to remove a reply of yours.

Hey InedibleHulk. Regarding WP:RDM#Name of fetish?, I thought that SemanticMantis's response was great, as by answering it most quickly dismisses what seems likely a trolling question. I'd like to remove the follow-up (baseball-bug-itis) just an edit summary of "Wikipedia:No personal attacks", and would like permission to remove your reply to that comment at the same time. Cheers. -- ToE 12:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind. BB removed the entire thing. -- ToE 13:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What a shame. I find pondlife quite fascinating. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
All good. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Dope

Hi, appropos of your recent response but not relevant to the thread- I thought you might like this quote from Tom Lehrer:

SemanticMantis (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

A little context... Enjoy!! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Keeping copyright simple. Good stuff, Tom! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phoenix Jones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strikeforce. 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, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Miss Nobody (American murder victim)

I need help saving Little Miss Nobody from deletion. Urgently. LMN is Arizona's Boy in the Box. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't restore troll posts

No, this is a banned user and known troll. He's not looking to be educated. He's been around a while, we get rid of his stuff every day or two. Let it drop. --Jayron32 01:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It's dropped, just explaining myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect information regarding Bill McDermott's accident

Hi InedibleHulk, it should be noted that Bill McDermott continued working even after his accident. Would it be possible to clarify this in the article?

Despite the accident, Bill continued his work as CEO, attending important meetings and conferences.[1],,[2] [3]Harper70 (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Harper70

He seems to have "attended" those by phone. I guess teleconferencing counts as work, though, especially in this day and age. Clarity is always possible. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your time and for making the edits, Inedible Hulk!

In the interest of clarity, I think it’s quite important to note that Bill never stopped working, and his commitment to the company, its employees and shareholders remained resolute outside of just attending teleconferences. I know this article is in German, but it notes McDermott managed the company from afar..[4]

Again, another German article, but the Financial Times Europe piece notes that SAP’s business was not affected..[5]

The October reference in the original article was in McDermott’s ability to travel again, which is obviously beginning tomorrow. There were no restrictions on his ability to work following his surgery.

Would replacing the final sentence of the Personal Life section with “He continued leading SAP during his recuperation and is cleared to travel again as of October 1” be possible. Happy to discuss further! Thanks again. Harper70 (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Harper70

Went with something like that. Look alright? I can't see where it says he's flying on October 1, just October. Have I missed it? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!! Your edit definitely provides more clarity. I really appreciate your help! Harper70 (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Harper70

No problem. Something you've done at SAP has probably helped me in some indirect way (it's a big company), so we're even. And people reading the article get a better picture. That's the important thing. If there's anything else encyclopedic we're missing or mistaken about, feel free to suggest. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, now that Bill McDermott has been back at HQ for a few months, would it be possible to delete the reference to the October timeframe? It would be great to update the article for readers. Thank you so much. Harper70 (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Harper70

Yeah, I'd forgotten about that. Didn't delete it outright, but put it in the past tense. Hope he's doing well. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Q2 , Q2 Earnings
  2. ^ [1], SucessFactors Keynote, August 3, 2015
  3. ^ [2], Top Ten Moments at SAP SuccessConnect, August 3, 2015
  4. ^ Personality Of The Week: Don't Give Up! , Handelsblatt (Germany), 18 September, 2015
  5. ^ SAP CEO Bill McDermott Has Lost An Eye In An Accident , Wirtschaftswoche (Germany), 16 September, 2015

I am very Disappointed

InedibleHulk, repent! ( Your Vandalism on last September 2 ) Your excellent https://www.google.ca/search?q="sources say"&tbs=qdr:d,sbd:1&tbm=nws dropped off some time between 09:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC) and 09:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC). I expect my computer to keeping on running - more on this, perhaps, later. Regards, Askedonty (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And I'm disappointed in you for not making any sense. Or, if you are making sense, for hiding it too well. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Murder of the Grimes sisters

About Murder of the Grimes sisters... not being an Elvis Presley historian, I've just realised that the statement was probably not made by Elvis himself but rather by his "people" as Presley himself would have been far too busy. Not being certain, I'm wondering what call i should make as to what to do? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you confusing me with someone else? I've never heard of them, let alone know what statement you're talking about. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait with your edits

I am going to sleep, I want to further discuss the incidents you wanted to delete. (comment by Bolter21)

You sure like to stall. If the next bit of this discussion is just more of you pretending not to hear people explain a simple concept, I'm ignoring it, deleting the unsourced stuff and asking that you be blocked if you restore it. But I'll wait a day to hear you out. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rebellion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boss. 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) 10:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Intended, this time. Rebellion can apply to all of those bosses. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Murder conversation

Well, it turned out to be rather pointless and unsubstantiated now that this reaction has come to light, so I'm reverting the edits done and will wait until a proper consensus is reached. Versus001 (talk) 06:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a pretty fucking weird strategy. Good luck with whatever you're trying to do! Leave Ramona Moore alone, though, if you don't mind. I just re-moved her. Hit up that talk page, if you disagree. I can't tell anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Good luck trying to do that; I was reverted twice by Daniel Case, who is insistent that we should be discussing about such a topic first and reaching a consensus. The discussion is here. Versus001 (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I moved Murder of Ramona Moore back. Consider it this way: would you insist on retitling Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum theft under the same logic, that no one has been tried for the crime so therefore we can't say it's a theft without ruining their presumption of innocence? If so, what alternative title would you have in mind—"1990 unauthorized removal of artwork from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum", perhaps? (And please don't actually do this)

Also, if someone is tried for murder but winds up pleading to, or getting convicted of, manslaughter instead, what should we do? Retitle the article "Manslaughter of ..."? I'd like to know. Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

There are no suspects in the theft, so no reputations to soil. Much different in these two. If there were people on trial for it, of course we should change it. WP:BLPCRIME isn't called WP:BLPMURDER. If manslaughter isn't called "third-degree murder" where that person was convicted, "manslaughter" would make more sense than murder, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Please stop move-warring over this without consensus for a name change that would affect a great deal of articles.

"Homicide" is a distinction without a difference ... most people see the term and impute intent, despite the fact that technically it applies to self-defense and accidental killings of one person by another as well as murder.

Simply referring to someone's killing as a murder is not inherently libelous as you seem to think (unless you've gotten some case law somewhere to back you up; please share it if you do). What would be libelous is text in the article stating that a particular person did it before a conviction or confession to that effect (and in the former case we should always say "X was convicted of the crime" if they are still protesting their innocence or have not confessed). Legal niceties notwithstanding, "murder" is the most commonly used term for any killing found by investigative authorities to have occurred as a result of deliberate action by another.

I should add that in my state, New York, first-degree murder requires merely that the state prove intent (as well some other special situations), and second-degree murder also requires intent but covers a lot of other situations, including "the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, in other words what most people think is codified as manslaughter. Manslaughter is reserved for cases where the accused may have not intended to kill the victim but used force so recklessly against him (or with, as the prosecutors on Law & Order are always wont to try and argue, "depraved indifference"). So "murder" at least in New York where the Ramona Moore case took place, covers quite a bit of potential activity.

Using "murder" in the title of articles about deaths believed to have been deliberately caused fits with our naming conventions: "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." See, also, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, on the same page: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." So, when the media starts using "homicide" more frequently, then we can and will. But not until. We reflect the world, we don't take it upon ourselves to change it to any greater extent than trying to put the sum of human knowledge at everyone's fingertips would.

I will grant some exceptions (exceptions that prove the rule) to "murder of ..." as a title:

  • Killing of Tim McLean: In that case the trial established that the defendant committed the acts alleged but found him not guilty by reason of insanity. So, with those two conditions satisfied, it is proper not to call the article "murder of ..."
  • Death of Caylee Anthony: Yes, her mother was tried for murder and acquitted. But a key reason for that was that the body was so decomposed when it was found that the coroner was unable to establish a cause of death. Thus the prosecution's case had to rely on thin circumstantial evidence, hearsay, and the general public not finding the defendant terribly sympathetic.

Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me where exactly you started this conversation? I intend to start it again (if it's possible) because this whole thing is obviously going to be an endless debate and I think a clear consensus should be reached on this. Versus001 (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I started it where you found it. Where else? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
But...that's an archive... Versus001 (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Starting with the URL in your browser's address bar, remove everything beginning with "/Archive". What's left is where it started. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to say that, but assumed sarcasm. Thanks, Masem! I mean, Muboshgu. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You're quite welcome, Iridescent, er, IndustrialGiant. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

BFT

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/blunt-force-trauma.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunt_trauma

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1882786

"Beaten" is NOT a scientific term...its just not....ever.Sunnydoo (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither is stabbed, shot, fall, lung disease, traffic collision or many others we use. Why does clinical precision suddenly matter for this guy? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted you. The source says what I do in bold letters, and doesn't mention any part of "blunt force trauma". Science aside, we follow the sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted you- to wit "This can sometimes be caused by an attacker striking out at a victim with their hands, a large piece of wood, a baseball bat or other such item that would cause heavy damage to the body or skull if impacted against them quickly." from the first link.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
And it can also be caused by falls and traffic collisions. But in this case, the source is clear about what police say did kill kim. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The difference for Traffic Collisions is that there are many different types of injuries that could occur. Normally we would not be privy to them. They could be Blunt Force Trauma, bleeding injuries, destruction of organs or any other number of issues like lung collapse, etc etc. Beaten means he was hit by hands and feet. Unless someone has really really sharp nails and hit an artery, that will be blunt force trauma every time.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not in the source, Sunny. If you can find one where it is, that'd be different. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
It's in http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/blunt-force-trauma.html and the other sources I listed. If you like I will pull the page in the Coroner's handbook for you to read. Do you know how to fill out a Death Certificate? Do you realize how funny listing "Beaten" for the Cause of Death would be for a professional Coroner or Medical Examiner?Sunnydoo (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I have filled out death certificates (most of the fields, anyway). A lot of the things we list here would look funny there, and things there would look funny here. There are different standards. On Wikipedia, we report the cause of death as listed in a reliable source. That's all. Note the source also says he bled heavily. Beatings will do that, sharp nails or not. Skin is only so elastic. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
And I reverted you again. You are the main reason by the way why I quit Editing this Death Page. It takes a lot of work to run these things down and your constant knitpicking is extremely disruptive. But that is neither here or there for this discussion. You are simply wrong.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not nitpicking, it's WP:V. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
And I have given the source to translate what "Beaten" means...you are simply choosing to ignore it, because you cant defend it.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You will be excited I guess one day when all of the CoDs are gone...then what next? Maybe go after the Nationalities or other information? Correct me if I am wrong, you are the one that wanted Cardiac Arrest jettisoned because it wasnt exact enough. Well Blunt Force Trauma is a lot more exact than Beaten ever will be.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You're just ranting now. I've started a Talk Page section, maybe aim it there. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
No, not ranting. Just really sick of the knitpicking.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
When have I ever even implied I wanted CoDs or nationalities gone? You may have noticed the Suicide RfC, where I said I only wanted causes of death. No medical examiner is ever going to put "suicide" in the cause field, and you don't seem to have a problem with that. But you'll replace something that totally would go in the proximate cause field because it's not immediate enough? That's nitpicking to me. A little sick of it, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
This is why I asked you if you knew how to fill out a Death Certificate. I will get you a link. Because if you think Suicide isnt on the DC, you have no idea what you are talking about. You have to fill out the type of death: natural, homicide, suicide, unexplained or accidental. Then the cause is listed. So a suicide would be listed Suicide by overdose like in the case of Jim Caray's recently departed girlfriend. Likewise, Natural Death by Cancer, etc etc. We just list Suicide on here because it has overlay with both Homicides and Accidental deaths. Usually the other categories dont overlay each other. Suicide is the only one that usually overlaps on a frequent basis.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You're so pissed you've forgotten how to read. I said you don't write suicide in the cause field. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if that is what you are aiming at, but i am not. I am in a great mood tonight as my Cubs won. Nothing is going to ruin my day now. I was mostly laughing earlier about this until i realized that you have no idea what you are talking about. After that it would be just mean. Now I am really just trying to help you understand before you dig yourself a bigger hole.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't care if you're pissed, I just wanted you to understand what I said. Good for the Cubs, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for my sharp words. I didnt realize you didnt know what you are talking about. Look at this link, this is the gold standard for the World. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/hb_cod.pdf. This link is for the actual form itself- http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/blue_form.pdf.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

911, wrestlers, and TV shows

Re this, I'll give you credit for knowing that it's not worth much. But I wonder whether you considered that many editors are better at counting than weighing, including, I believe, some in that discussion. Why complicate matters unnecessarily? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Just two examples of real world use, where the authors don't need to consider other stuff existing. Since they don't have a reason to bend the truth, they're more trustworthy examples. Lots of stuff confuses lots of Wikipedians. I can't help that. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

yay!

starship.paint ~ KO 05:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Boo! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

"Protesting one's innocence

I reverted that. "To protest" was originally synonymous in every context with "to proclaim" (scroll down here), and perhaps since legal usages change so slowly, if it all, "protesting one's innocence" is the only context in which it retains that meaning. See No. 2 under our definition of the verb at Wiktionary, as well as other online dictionaries, plus other such usages). Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you OK with saying what the cited source does? That way, neither of us loses, and Wikipedia wins verifiability. He also says he had nothing to do with her disappearance, not just her death, as "innocence" alone implies in context. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, unless we are quoting directly and with attribution, we should try to avoid repeating exactly what a source says, as it could lead to copyvio or close paraphrasing (see my more recent changes) if we get lazy about it (unless there's really no other way to say it, which I don't think is the case here.

I decided to take "disappearance" out; as her body has been recovered and neither Bonie nor anyone else has been charged with kidnapping or abducting her (yet), so there's no point in repeating a journalist's attempt to be melodramatic in their copy (I know, I was there once) when we can get the same point across with better use of the language. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. We have a few "Disappearance and death of ..." articles, and AFAIC that's a few too many. Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not perfect, but it's alright. Now let's try to avoid each other (and not slander anyone else, of course). InedibleHulk (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
No prob (But what if I decide I like you? For two people who started out snarling at each other, we actually managed to reach a pretty amicable resolution of our differences without much in the way of external help. I like it when Wikipedia works out like that). Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Let's quit while we're ahead! Kumbaya, man. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Reddit

I took a second look at that thing (the ADD comes and goes) and learned that (1) it wasn't a criticism of you as I first thought, and (2) they stole some of my comments (I'm considering suing them for COPYVIO ;). (Guess I can't if they attributed them, on second thought.) Gossip-loving parasites. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No, this is a criticism of me. Sue away! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I find the "mad scientist" accusation too damned entertaining to care much, but the post links other editors, too. Please be cautious re the prohibition on linked personal attacks at WP:NPA. VQuakr (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't write the thing, just found it. That's buddy's personal attack, and a problem for Reddit's admins, if it's a problem at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I was not claiming you wrote it; you linked it. See Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, which is mentioned in and linked from NPA. The guideline mostly is about much more serious stuff like harassment though, which is not a factor here. VQuakr (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, someone might have a case. But like you say, nothing too serious here. Just stuff we've all freely shared on Wikipedia, compiled. And a little dash of sharpish commentary. I saw one thing on Encylopedia Dramatica about an old "enemy" of mine here; that I won't link. It ventures into straight-up illegal (as most Dramatica articles do). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The page containing "mad scientist" was derogatory to only one user that I could see. That user was just indeffed for sockpuppetmastering (hours before the link was committed). Are blocked puppetmasters protected under this rule? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The protected species in NPA seems to be "other editors". If someone can't edit, they're not an editor (at least for the indefinite future). But then the external harrasment supplement protects "any individual", which these three former editors apparently still are. So yes and no.
More clearly, the subject matter of the possibly offensive link is me easily protecting myself from a much clearer assault charge. Past performance doesn't always indicate future results, but it seems logical that taking the harder round easily means the easier second round (should my opponent answer the bell) shouldn't be hard. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Umpqua edit war

Look, I now realize that I should have said, "Should I start an RfC on this?". I said it wrong, I apologize, but that fact doesn't outweigh status quo ante. Yeah, it's getting funkier, I agree. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

What's status quo ante, and how much does it weigh? Nothing to be sorry about. But right now, two editors are both for keeping it pre-RfC, and for including it when it's over. Like we established yesterday, you're just one man(druss). Consensus is doing its thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Status quo ante refers to the amount of time the article has been in particular state, establishing a de facto consensus for that state. There's little agreement about how much time is required to establish that consensus, but most would agree that two hours is not enough. The content was out for days, I'd have to research it to find out how many. Things get really recursive when we start asserting that we have to have consensus about widely recognized process principles. Maybe we should seek a consensus about that? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Is this a guideline or something? Who are these most that would agree, and where is this widely recognized? Status quo ante answers none of that. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know of a guideline, I just see editors applying the principle all the time. I assure you I didn't make it up to serve my agenda. If you're really interested, you could ask at WP:VPP. But sure, you can play the "show me the guideline" card, and it usually works. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
So when that happens all the time, we should do it, but when editors note where the killer shot himself all the time, we shouldn't? You're all over the place tonight. Not the logical Mandruss I knew. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Deliberately or otherwise, you pulled that diff right out of context. I was referring to precedent as to content, not process. The entire discussion was about content. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
You might be right. Anyway, find something fun to do for now. It's Friday, after all. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Urraca Mesa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black bear. 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) 10:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ronald Goldman

Hi. I have reverted the edits you made last month to the Ronald Goldman article, as they clearly violate Wikipedia policy, along with common sense. Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman were indeed murdered, as a question of documented fact. The fact that O.J. Simpson was found liable in a wrongful death suit does not mean that there were "no murders", as you stated in your edit summary, since "wrongful death" is a legal term used in civil trials, and is not mutually exclusive from murder. Lastly, we do use terms like "alleged", as explained at WP:ALLEGED. Having amassed over 34,000 edits here since 2006, you should know these things by now. Nightscream (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64#Images of victims and/or perps on crime pages

Central discussion has started; I invite you to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You made me laugh

Hilarious Username
Your username is quite amusing. Thanks for the chuckle! GrammarFascist contribstalk 17:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Not a bad one yourself. Your welcome! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I should change my username to "Buck Futt"? Naw, never mind... RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

mt st helena

I changed my indentation and adjusted yours as well. Letting you know in case you want to unindent your comment. μηδείς (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that looks right. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:Pro Wrestling

I love your edit summaries and sometimes random comments and whatnot. Super funny. lol Crash Underride 05:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I spent most of my school years scribbling in margins. At least it wasn't a totally useless skill. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I came here to say basically the same. I always plan to respond in my edit summaries but I forget too.--WillC 10:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic UFC 193. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! This is George Ho actually (Talk) 20:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ds notice

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not big on elections, but maybe. Thanks for the heads up, friendly robot! InedibleHulk (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26

The image of the perpetrator is nominated as FFD. I invite you for commentary. --George Ho (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Proper Use of Hyphens

Hi. In the interest of avoiding an edit war in Holly Holm, especially over something as silly as this, I want to politely point out that no one needs to find "one example of usage" in order to "have a leg to stand on." I only need to cite Wikipedia policy, which I've done.

But since you asked, check out the last sentence in the first paragraph of "Bantamweight championship" -- right above one of the hyphens that you've been removing.

". . .ending Rousey's undefeated streak and three-year reign as champion."

In that case, "three-year" is being used as an adjective for "reign," just like "combat-sports" is being used as an adjective for "history" below. This is a proper use of a hyphen, and there is no reason to keep removing it. If "Combat Sports" was captalized, then there would be no need for the hyphen, but it isn't, and shouldn't be. Of course, I'm not perfect. If you know of a Wikipedia policy that contradicts this, please cite it, and I'll respect that. I hope this resolves things. -- James26 (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

All I see in that guideline is something about "Many compounds that are hyphenated...". It says nothing about whether something like "combat sports" is an adjective, let alone one of those adjectives. Since the phrase is never hyphenated, that's reason enough to not do it here. Just like if I wanted to spell it "U.F.C." Someone would simply point out that's not how it's done, and that would be that. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Is the current version OK by you? Nothing like an adjective anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

[9] I didn't delete it because it was trolling, I deleted it because it was a stupid thing to say. --Viennese Waltz 09:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It kind of was, but we should all be responsible for our own comments, anywhere we sign. In articles, in Wikipedia's voice, a much different story. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Often

Undid revision 692662431 by Diblidabliduu (talk) One man's "often" is another's "sometimes". "Has been" is clear enough.

Okay.

But does that mean there should be no "often" words visible on any politically volatile article, because it's not "unbiased" to have that? (link) --Diblidabliduu (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it just means this has long been a contentious issue on this particular paragraph (also "many" critics vs "some"), and this was the best compromise that Talk Page could find. In other places, "often" might work or might not. Depends on the context. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Have a good one, too! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy new year, too. Mainly coming over this way to point out that you've been rather quiet lately, at least in the places I'm accustomed to seeing you at (not just WT:PW, BTW). Anyway, have a good one. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Whatever happens tomorrow is up to the booze to decide, but for tonight, nothing could possibly go wrong! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
And a Super Sunday to you, Mr. Paint. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year Bro!

Goodness, this page needs archiving...lol -- Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I like to package sections in hundreds. Thanks for making me figure out what a cig bunner is. Strange stuff. Have a good one! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
So, you like my new name i.e. available for the month or two..lol.
Call me whatever you like - with my nickname's first, middle, last or with the whole bit; I guess you figured anyone will suit me...
Sorry for the delay, I forgot cause you didn't tag me...
Take care...
Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


James Johnson

This was my original point removing Portland. There is reasonable differentiation between his tenures with Cleveland (where he was a 2-time all-star) and Seattle (where he had his longest tenure and on a title) to just include those two. He had nearly identical tenures with Portland and Houston so it is silly to A) add one just to make it three entries, or B) list 3 of 4 total teams with an arbitrary cutoff. I get what you are saying about limits - so just leave it at Cleveland and Seattle and be done with it. Rikster2 (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The more important ones always go first. If Houston and Portland were equally unimportant to him, either works. It's not exactly an arbitrary cutoff, it's a cutoff based on centuries of conventional writing. But yes, I'm done with it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Here's a fierce jungle kitty for you and your wonderful sense of humor.

CrashUnderride 21:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

D'aww! He matches this background colour I'm seemingly stuck with. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Bloody Freak

Hey man, how are you? Take a look at this guy's contributions. He simply ignores sources based on that blind belief "per Sherdog". One that even elevates Sherdog to a x-ray doctor robot. Not only that, but he believes Sherdog can state a fight ended due to a "esophagus injury" and no source can remove that, even the ones that clearly can and are listed there. Funny thing is that he says this to a user on today's event page: The jaw did break but the submission was just a neck crank. You wouldn't say "Submission (broken arm due to armbar)". So you can't say that, but you can use Sherdog diagnosis on Oliveira's fight? Incredible how he can contradict himself like that though. What's your take on this? It seems clear he needs more people to show him that through a consensus. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Weird, I just wrote you about something else. Anyway, in fighter articles, I prefer following Sherdog, because we list that as the record source in their infoboxes. But in event articles, it's whatever most reliable sources say. Still sometimes good to have fighter articles match event ones for consistency. Personally, I count it as a tap to a broken jaw. His neck didn't hurt that bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
That was just a reference to his incosistensy and lack of argument. We should keep it as close to the true outcome. Sherdog does a good jog guiding is for the majority of fights. But they make plenty of mistakes as well. Von Flue being called just "shoulder choke" and other examples. This one is probably the most ridiculous as they presume Oliveira had an esophagus injury that can't be diagnosed by a MMA website watching a fight. Then all medical releases clearly say he did not have such injury and explain what happened. Yet, because Sherdog M.D. does not waste their time going back to change results, a stubborn user comes 6 months later after such situation was dealt within the article (there were arguments but they ended with the sources shown) to stir the pot. That's my point. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
For things like this, there's no harm in having the Sherdog call, and a sourced (visible) note about the neck injury. Room for two sides of a story here. I'd keep it neutral, though. No need for stuff about Sherdog's medical incapacity (there; here it's fine). Just what Oliveira says. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

ship versus boat

The Cutty Sark is a ship, not a boat - as per your edit summary. The difference, with exceptions, is size. A boat is a watercraft that can be lifted out of the water (often with some sort of mechanical equipment).

Sorry to be picky....

And, incidentally, suffer has a number of related meanings - it does not just mean "experience pain/some other bad feeling". An online dictionary has a good example: "The business suffers from lack of capital."

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Aye, semantics. "She" isn't exactly she, either. I tried fighting that one briefly at the Manual of Style, but maritimers are a contentious lot. The word "suffer" alone is enough to invoke sympathy, and there's really no place for that in an encyclopedia. Best to just say what something "has", and let readers decide whether that's terrible or wonderful. I change them where I see them, but if someone's strongly attached, I give up (or "succumb") rather easily. Are you strongly attached? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Oddly enough, I'd brought up the ship/boat deal myself in the Reference Desk question that led me to this ship. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InedibleHulk/Archive_3&oldid=1078483104"