Open main menu

The End is the Beginning is the End (or The Beginning is the End is the Beginning)Edit

Both fine Pumpkins songs, but one is better than the other. Argue about which is which here, or argue about something else in a new section. As long as the page isn't blank, everyone wins! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, July 4, 2018 (UTC)

End or beginning? See you when I see you, Hulk. starship.paint (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Just don't come rapping at my chamber door between 11:35 and 11:37, you odd duck. That's clobberin' time! Saluting the old flagpole, revisiting my home and native land, riding the pale horse away. By any name, you've been forewarned. Some things are best left uninterrupted and can't be unseen. Too much information? As Saturn says, you're welcome!
Are you even old enough to 'member Moppy? Or Terri?!? Talk about some twin towers, eh? Too soon to "play the King"? Not today and not on my watch! Time to "rush the storyline", "deflate the viewer" and "leave it all in the ring". Wish me luck, and again, please excuse me! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:21, July 1, 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm not old enough, actually, but Google turns up results. Wishing you luck! starship.paint</.span> (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
In case anyone unfamilar with our secret international code is eavesdropping on this end at the top, you're going about it the wrong way. But more importantly, you deserve a frank and honest explanation, and by god, you're about to get it. You see, America, it was never about Game of Thrones or fake news or creepy colour commentators in your living rooms. Not about Trish or Traci or Trump. That kind of music ain't got the same soul as the gold around the lovely Miss Elizabeth's waist on that fateful August day the Mega Powers beat off the Mega Bucks. Dig it? Wrestling fans worldwide masturbate to grainy footage for all sorts of reasons, not just women in their underwear or men in their underwear. The choice is never that simple.
This November, while your families are gearing up for the following November and being thankful you don't have be thankful in October (as nature intended) I want you to run into your closets, come out of them in whatever intricately-coloured underwear you think most proudly accentuates your respective angle/platform/viewpoint/gimmick/total package. Then run to your chamber windows, fling open open your robes and tell the cameras loud and clear, "I'm mad as hell and I'll dress like this every day if you'll go fund me for the Democratic nomination!"
After avenging Dukakis' SummerSlam defeat and restoring order to the Primary Universe (and only one of you will), you can wear any suit you want. Anything. Just remember to blame Russia, not some fantastic giant dead rabbit from Canada. I cannot stress that last part of our plan enough, and neither can you! If they know you're crazy, that's how they'll "get" you on the final televised debate. Trust me. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:34, July 1, 2019 (UTC)
Go home Hulk, you're drunk. LOL. starship.paint (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I think you'd be into what I put on Jimbo's page. [1]. But it was reverted and needs consensus. starship.paint (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I was hungover and had a bad dream, going home caused that. Just buzzed now. Even stone sober, I don't fundamentally understand what you're on about. Not with Spygate, not with Framgate, not with Savio Vega's inclusion in a deleted pseudonational dinner party. The more I dig, the foggier it gets. But good luck to you, too, and maybe I'll catch up later, somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:35, July 2, 2019 (UTC)
It's a puzzle! Jimbo Wales has a nation in it. I went from nations to other entities like stars! Vega is a star. starship.paint (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Holy crap, you're right! It all makes 10% sense now. Will solve the harder parts later, or die trying. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, July 2, 2019 (UTC)
Please don't die! I've hidden some answers somewhere. starship.paint (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Gotta go when we gotta go, but a multilayered scavenger hunt is as good a reason as any to keep on keeping on, I suppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:21, July 2, 2019 (UTC)

A brownie for you!Edit

  You're awesome. Thanks for updating the 2018 heat wave article. July 8, 2018 is still very unbearably hot in SoCal. I saw an opportunity to save it. SWP13 (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
And thank you for calling me awesome! Even if that's just the unseasonal(ish) warmth talking, kindness really is the best way forward in any nightmarish wilderness situation. Don't piss any fellow mammals off, don't sweat those that would have your blood boil and don't be afraid to offer even the most gruesome of local creatures a bottle of water or a coat of insect repellent if they come bursting down your door or shambling down your street. They're just as scared and confused as you are. Or they're the risen dead and it'll all be over soon. Either way, cooler heads prevail and we conserve our primal reptilian fight-or-flight juice for hockey season (where it belongs, even in California). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:29, July 9, 2018 (UTC)

Group achievementsEdit

If you disagree perhaps start a discussion? As opposed to lashing out like you did in your edit summaries. Rusted AutoParts 22:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Those were preambles. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, July 16, 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Danforth shooting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Trimming ref titles in Deaths in 2018Edit

Actually, we do often trim them to remove obvious and irrelevant (what I call) "tabloidisms" (or blurbs, if you like) - such as "Breaking:", "Latest:" (or maybe "Now hear this:"?). I agree, though, that "Read his wife’s full tribute" doesn't represent such a thing on this occasion. Just a wee point though. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 06:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

A wee point, but a good one. I call those "stingers", like on TV, but I don't think that's the "real" term. Always figured tabloidism was just short for tabloid journalism, but if I ever hear it from you, I'll know what you mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:23, August 10, 2018 (UTC)

Page moveEdit

Applying consistency, will you therefore move 2014 Moncton shootings to Moncton shooting? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll try. Will you help me if I can't? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, August 10, 2018 (UTC)
No worries, it worked. And apologies for presuming you're still an admin. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, August 10, 2018 (UTC)

Jim Neidhart drug addicitonsEdit

To answer your question. In real life, Neidhart did drugs as he was charged with two counts of possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute, two counts of trafficking illegal drugs, one count of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling, and one count of third degree grand theft for property stolen between $300 and $5,000 in 2010. On an episode of Total Divas (I watched this episode) Natayla was crying about her Dad's drug addictions as he was going to rehab. I have a link to this http://www.mtv.co.uk/wwe/blog/total-divas-nattie-reveals-extreme-anxiety-over-dad-jim-neidharts-problems

  • Kingzwest, let me say this real quick before you say too much: be VERY VERY careful talking about this kind of stuff without reliable sources (not MTV etc.). I didn't even know until just now he was dead, but the BLP still applies. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
My question was only about whether she help him quit an addiction, not whether she cried before his rehab. Seems to be no, from that source. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, August 15, 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Deaths in 2018, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington Senators (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Korean Reunions in Current EventsEdit

Hi, when I look at this webpage, the second sentence reads:

The reunions began on Monday at North Korea's scenic Mount Kumgang resort between 89 South Koreans and their family members from the North.

I'm happy with your edit, as there is no real need to specify a number, but I just thought I should clarify :) Thanks. Murchison-Eye (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You might be right, on third thought. I don't see that sentence at all, but the page moves to the picture when I click "Find next", suggesting my browser is hiding the info behind it. I'll trust your eyes and revert myself. Numbers do matter. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, August 21, 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Alton Harris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kidnapper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation sources notification for August 22Edit

Human processes have detected that you added [2] [3] Reuters twice when the cited source was a different one. If the publisher uses news agency content, you may use the form (Agency via Publisher), as in (Reuters via U.S. News & World Report) or (Associated Press via The Star). Please mind the gap, WP:V and WP:CS. Thank you. Wakari07 (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course I may, but why should I? A Reuters reporter wrote the thing, and Reuters wires carried it. Why shouldn't they get the credit? You robots just don't know the value of hard work, everything's automatic. You're a clever bunch, though, I'll give you that. Have it your way, for now, but one day the humans are going to have enough and rise up against this sort of digital repression. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:38, August 23, 2018 (UTC)
Lol, I'm a human. I agree that the machine must obey. Wakari07 (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Then welcome aboard! Now, human-to-human, do you seriously insist on giving equal billing to the group that makes the news, and the horde that copies and pastes it online for clicks? I think anytime we find a wire story, we should simply link to the bureau's website instead. They, too, have long ago turned digital (though the actual wires still work, some say). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, August 24, 2018 (UTC)
I could start talking quark quack... but we shouldn't duck WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Agencies have their role and publishers have their role too. WP:A + WP:B = checks and balances. Now, why would agencies put their stories in full on the web, for free? Many of them are private companies with a business model. They need money, like you and me, and therefore they sell their stories to publishers. Belga, for one, is a small but trustable agency, even if it puts only a small selection of stories for free on the web. Agence France-Presse is world-class, but on their public website, they put only teasers for their big stories. These agencies form a network with the likes of ANP, DPA, EFE,... This way, the national-language publishers have a balanced newsfeed for the subjects they cannot afford to assign their own journalists to... The likes of ANSA and Associated Press are cooperatives owned by a network of publishers. Still others are partly or fully state-owned... and they in turn can then be checked by the publishers... I hope you're satisfied with this laborious answer. Wakari07 (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Partially, thanks. I appreciate the effort. Will keep this in mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, August 25, 2018 (UTC)

Well...Edit

I guess it would be obtuse to go with something like INEDIBILEHULKWHATCHA GONNA DO BROTHER!? ...Oh well. GMGtalk 19:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

That's even better than a double Emmy. Thanks! But that first font is seriously not my cup of tea, in any colour. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, August 28, 2018 (UTC)
Meh. Just having a little fun, lest I spend all day talking about US politics and wind up with a headache. GMGtalk 20:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
All good. Even Stephen Colbert needs a break now and then. You ever to stop to think that stuff might cause brain cancer? First John McCain, then Ted Kennedy, who's next...Alexander Archibald? Just something less depressing than immigration and neverending unrelenting Trump for you to mull over on a rainy Tuesday afternoon. If it's not a rainy Tuesday afternoon where you are, I apologize on behalf of my suggestion. Please select a kitten and have a wonderful evening/morning/night! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctionsEdit

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been interested in living and dead people since I was born and have edited articles about them for twelve years. These sanctions are ten years old. Is there something specific prompting this? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:17, September 3, 2018 (UTC)
Policy states that someone should slap this template every year if you are editing this area so as to remind you to "more strictly" follow the rules. after getting this "You have been served" message, you cannot feign ignorance or forgetfulness when you are getting sanctioned in future   --DBigXray 17:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Policy say to template the regulars? This would be the exact opposite of normal behavior...we're does it say this?--Moxy (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Sadly no free pass for the regulars this time. hail WP:TTR--DBigXray 19:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Just watch out for that WP:BOOMERANG. I'm not the one insisting Saphora Smith's words ("fatal fist fight") or Donald Trump's words ("rogue operation") are official Saudi statements. It's flat wrong and a reasonable person would know it is after having it explained to them as often I has have to you. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:13, October 28, 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced is not interchangeable with missingEdit

The adjective misplaced has two common meanings:

  1. To be incorrectly positioned. (e.g. An incorrect amount of money was transferred because of a misplaced period in the cheque.)
  2. To be temporarily lost. (e.g. He misplaced his books.)

The adjective is derived from the verb misplace, which is generally reserved for inanimate objects, because they cannot move on their own. In standard English language, persons and animals are lost or missing, with the use of the two words depending on the context.

CentreLeftRight 19:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Aye, I used it like meaning 2 ("The earthquake misplaced some people"). The people are lost or missing, just like books. I don't think animation has anything to do with it. You could say "leave missing" for a verb, but it's wordy and weird, I find. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:42, September 7, 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alertEdit

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

DBigXray 19:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

When I posted this banner here, it showed this template see MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

--DBigXray 19:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this supposed to scare me into letting you spread lies? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:02, October 28, 2018 (UTC)
Good Gracious, AGF ? You asked me to point where it states the policy to template it. see the section above, and this is the only way to find that template. Obviously this template was not intended to scare you into anything, there is already an existing template on this topic that you got recently. --DBigXray 20:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Assuming good faith doesn't last forever. You've proven yourself (to me) highly inept at reading comprehension and editing without lying, and now you're confusing me with Moxy, much like you've routinely conflated the article subjects you try to write about. Where am I supposed to draw the line and stop being polite about this waste of time? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, October 28, 2018 (UTC)

October 2018Edit

  Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Killing of Jamal Khashoggi. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. This is a shocking display of bad faith, You should know that AGF and CIVIL are not optional here. I encourage you to strike/remove the unnecessary attacking parts and continue the discussion in a cordial and WP:CIVIL manner, there is always an option to disengage from the topic altogether, but incivility and personal attacks will not be tolerated any longer. DBigXray 20:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

No. You've had multiple chances to fool me into thinking you're here to help, and continue to blow them. I stand by my assessment of your poor editing history, but admit you're probably an OK guy in real life and possibly beneficial to other Wikipedia articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:32, October 28, 2018 (UTC)
  As this image signifies, this was the final warning. If your uncivil behavior against me continues on the article talk pages and edit summaries, we are going to have further discussion about your behavior on the WP:ANI. And since this article comes under the purview of WP:AC/DS, Discretionary sanctions will also be considered that may included topic bans. regards --DBigXray 23:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Define "uncivil behaviour". I'm trying to help you understand how you're wrong about certain things, in hopes you'll learn to be right. Complain to someone if you want, but I don't see what you'd gain from it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, October 29, 2018 (UTC)

The Washington TimesEdit

Hello,

I was just wondering if you can take a quick look at the talk page at The Washington Times about ongoing lead issues. There has been a lot of news spamming and unencyclopedic content pushed lately, and it would be nice to have someone more level headed look at it.


Thanks!

Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Jamal Kashoggi titleEdit

Hey chill! I totally agree with you that this was a murder 100%, from the moment I read about this in the news I have believed, known, that this was a murder by the Saudis. But this is an encyclopedia and should be unbiased... but that was before the Saudi statements that it was a murder. Now I agree with you that it should be called "Assassination". Now that they have confirmed it, the title can be changed. Sorry for any bad feelings! - Shibe08

You have the wrong guy. I was down for "killing" and am still down for chilling. I hope you find who you're looking for. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:25, November 2, 2018 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry. The guy who shouted at me got IP banned. Sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shibe08 (talkcontribs) 18:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC) Ok lets be friends — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shibe08 (talkcontribs) 19:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, but not close friends. Then we'd have to buy each other Christmas presents, and I have no idea what you like. Probably can't afford it right now anyway, whatever it is. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, December 21, 2018 (UTC)

Heads upEdit

You probably know, but if not, poppy posted the rest of the songs of the new album on her website during the day. Worth a hearing or two. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't. That's the best news I've heard since the last album went up. Hooray for everything and everyone everywhere! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, November 2, 2018 (UTC)

Trump as a sourceEdit

You might appreciate this:

  • "The president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP." -- MPants 04:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

No shit. But again, we're not talking about claims of facts at Talk:The Gateway Pundit, but opinions. An opinion we can't attribute to anyone, because not a single feature writer cited has opined it. For facts or opinions, Trump's better than no one. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:24, November 6, 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moshe Wilensky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israeli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Seriously?Edit

So you edited my talk page comments at Talk:Pittsburgh synagogue shooting while complaining about someone changing the header there? Were you just trying to make a point, or really just not getting it? I'm not going to template you, but that's seriously shitty behavior on your part. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I explained at the time that I was trying to show a point about why changing someone else's words is wrong, since you'd apparently missed the point of my simply telling you the same. I was clear you could change them back to what you'd originally typed, whether you finally understood or not. You seem to get the point now, that this is seriously shitty behaviour. I'm sorry for going so far to prove it, but was kind enough to make my modifications obvious by [bracketing]. Peace? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:22, November 11, 2018 (UTC)

November 2018Edit

Your recent editing history at Tiger Squad shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Edit summaries dont count as discussions. you should now self revert per WP:BRD and join discussion DBigXray 21:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Your edit summary was completely unrelated to the content in question, so I figured you made a mistake. Now I'm attempting to discern from you how you weren't mistaken on Talk. I'm cautiously optimistic on working toward an understanding. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:58, November 11, 2018 (UTC)
You made a bold edit and you were reverted. Now you don't get special rights to continue reverting. which is why i asked you to self revert. if you have any doubts, you should read the Policy on this WP:BRD again, I will not be asking this again. --DBigXray 22:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I was reverted for a seemingly nonsensical reason, though. It'd be like if I removed it with a summary about a Huffington Post article and cats. You'd think it was an error, wouldn't you? Anyway, explain on that Talk Page how you believe we're talking about the same team (despite the clear discrepancies); I won't self-revert till I get at least a semblance of relevancy. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, November 11, 2018 (UTC)
As I explained in the edit summary and more on the talk page, it isnt, the edit summary addressed the removal by you as well as the template added by another editor. Not sure why it wasnt clear to you, neverthless I hope it is clear now. Now per BRD, I expect a self revert and a Civil discussion on the talk page, regards. --DBigXray 22:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I removed a Washington Post column about a team that was created around September 2018 for covert operations from an article about a team that was created in 2017 to kill Saudi critics. You restored it reasoning that BBC has its own source, YouTube link, yadda yadda. Now you say the summary also addressed something about someone else's template, which isn't the case. The summary does say 15 members of a team were mobilized for Khashoggi (as the BBC source does), but this is supposed to prove a Washington Post column mentioning no numbers of members of some team belongs in an article about a team that sent five members after Khashoggi. Are you sure yet why this isn't clear to me? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, November 11, 2018 (UTC)
As you can see I made reverts of 2 edits in 1 single edit (1) the template and (2) restore the content. the long edit summary covered both.
  1. BBC has its own source, the youtube link is just a excerpt of the entire program.
  2. the squad is 50 membered, the whole squad of 50 member doesnt move around for example only 15 were mobilized for Khashoggi, discuss on talk.
I said (2) As I felt you are calling it different team due to different strength, as you had stated on AfD.
So clearly there has been some misunderstanding of my edit summary and my intention. So lets forgive each other and lets continue the discussion at the talk page. regards. --DBigXray 01:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Bit clearer on the summary now, thanks. You're right about me calling it a different team based on different strength, though. No group on Earth can send five of fifteen people to the same event while simultaneously sending all fifteen. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, November 12, 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Schoharie limousine crashEdit

 On 14 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Schoharie limousine crash, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the stretch limousine involved in the recent crash near Schoharie, New York, killing 20, appeared at two vehicle inspections earlier this year with different license plates? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Schoharie limousine crash), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, November 14, 2018 (UTC)

Your SignatureEdit

Greetings Hulk, can you check your WP:Signature. for some reasons your signature is wikilinking the time stamps. This is strange and makes it hard to read the time of your comment to folks in other time zones. May I request you to kindly remove whatever code is making these wikilinks in your timestamp. thanks. --DBigXray 23:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course you may. A few others have politely wondered about the intent of this practice over the years, and whether I might ever intend to stop. I cordially invite you to search my Archives for "signature", and the reasons why I still must respectfully decline shouldn't be hard to find. Whether you appreciate my stance is (as always) entirely up to you, good sir. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, November 19, 2018 (UTC)
All right, its upto you. I still didnt get the last part of your edit sumary [4], can you clarify the yours part. --DBigXray 04:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Your signature. The colours just aren't doing it for me, I'm afraid. But I'm glad they set you apart, and it would be my honour to die fighting for your right to display them in Wikipublic, should it ever come to that. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, November 19, 2018 (UTC)
Understood. LoL, appreciate the 'offer' for help. --DBigXray 06:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
If you were wondering about the linked "link", it was supposed to lead to Link to the Past. No hidden meaning. Just a typo. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, November 19, 2018 (UTC)
By the word link, i was referring to the wikilinks for November 19, 2018 in your timestamp. depending upon the timezone, it is November 20 already at many places. it is bound to confuse folks in a threaded conversation, who will be wondering about how you went in the past to make those comments. Admittedly I did not browse your archives. But I get it, it is your personal preference, and I guess you are anyway ready to pay (and make others pay) the price of your preference. So I have nothing more to add to this discussion. cheers. --DBigXray 07:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I hear you. You referred to the wikilinks as "wikilinks", which was pretty clear. I was only talking about the red letters in the "no prize pig" summary; there's no lame "ling"uistic wordplay (even that's terrible). Not entirely sure why I bothered linking anything there in the first place, let alone continued talking about it. Cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:23, November 19, 2018 (UTC)
Talking about wordplay, Just so that you know, In your red letters, you linked "Ling" which is another name for Lingam or "dick"--DBigXray 07:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that you are still doing this (most recent example). The practice of linking dates in this manner was deprecated more than ten years ago, around about the time that the date formatting feature was removed from the MediaWiki software. Quite apart from being seriously out of date, it also causes problems with bots and scripts. As an example, although you made this post and then this one earlier today, that thread was archived just a few minutes later because the latest valid timestamp, 19:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC), was more than 10 days earlier. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's one part even I find slightly annoying. But being ignored this way isn't so bad. Hope it's not a major inconvenience to you. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:44, June 24, 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what you're trying to fix by modifying my comment in the "Thanks" thread. Enterprisey gave the bot a recent stamp already. Should be fine, no? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, June 24, 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, InedibleHulk. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

TrumpEdit

Came across this from 2015. If only you'd been right... Best wishes, --Viennese Waltz 11:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I stand by everything except the second half of the first sentence. The forced suicide, the mother of all bombing, the women finally getting over and the breaking of kayfabe. The official trappings of his swerve presidency have had no ill effects on his neverending drive for personal publicity, that's the important thing to remember (in 2020, when he drops the belt to The Rock). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, December 2, 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying you were wrong about any of that. The second half of the first sentence is the part I was referring to. --Viennese Waltz 08:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Hulk hears you. Just clarifying for passersby. I'm humble enough admit when I'm sort of wrong about the future (I've been slightly off before, too). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, December 6, 2018 (UTC)

Mian Naeem RashidEdit

Hello Hulk, how did you know if Mian is a title? Thanks. starship.paint ~ KO 07:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I knew the guy's first name. When there's something before it, it's usually a title. A look at Mian (tribe) filled in the rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, March 31, 2019 (UTC)
Only from the news. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:59, April 2, 2019 (UTC)
While you're still here (are you still here?), I hope this answers your other question. His guns, his shitpost, but the whole system's legal proceedings. He's certainly the famous one, so the news will focus on him, but the match itself will ostensibly be called right down the middle. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:18, April 2, 2019 (UTC)

TroutEdit

  Whacky wack!

You've been whacked with wet trouts.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you and at least one other person did something silly.

For this. Editing under the influence? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes...sorry. I'll grab the mop and show myself the door. Thanks for all the fish. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:20, March 31, 2019 (UTC)
And thanks to the guy who cleaned up before I could. It probably wasn't as bad as it sounded, but it wasn't good. Recentism might have gotten to my head (among other things). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, March 31, 2019 (UTC)

Help meEdit

I'm struggling to understand what you're saying about the film. EEng 05:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah...best to just work on it a little at a time, if at all. The numbers part, I mean. Not sure what the "fine" part was about. It's not important, in any case. My comment, I mean, the film's clearly historic and substantial, even if I'm missing the point. I've already likely miscast myself as a violent racist (or something) tonight by failing to properly explain how Norse imagery appeals to a wider group than just skinheads. It should have been easy! This Milgram stuff won't be easy to translate even on my sharpest day, and even if I could, should I?
I don't know. I'm going to browse your Talk Page silently for a bit. Maybe doze off and wake up more coherent or something. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:24, March 31, 2019 (UTC)
Have you been taking your medication? EEng 06:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
In a manner of speaking. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:19, March 31, 2019 (UTC)

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 plane crashEdit

Hi. Excuse my reverting, but the section cannot be headed "People...". The criteria for a list of people in Deaths pages is that they are assumed "Notable people..." until the thirty day cull comes around. If anyone has a problem with the base notability of existing redlinks, the offending entries themselves should be removed, not the section renamed to remove the notability requirement. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 18:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I hear you. Am I right in assuming the Eller reversion was just collateral damage? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:58, March 31, 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that. I was under the impression I reverted just the edit before i.e. yours only, but my bad if not. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 20:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, March 31, 2019 (UTC)

CivilityEdit

This edit should have considered with WP:ESDONTS. --AntanO 02:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

We're meant to be civil to one another, not to unfeeling objects like these international scoreboards of the dead. But thanks for the advice. Have a nice day! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, April 23, 2019 (UTC)

Trees do breatheEdit

I read with amazement in the death article that you claim trees do not breathe. Where have you been??? While they do not breathe as animals, they need carbon dioxide to flourish. Plants convert CO2 to oxygen. Animals change oxygen to CO2. Its part of the circle of life. Spparky (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I've been in the forest. I've seen trees transform the air as you say they do. I believe they serve a vital purpose in the circle of life. But in all my years, I've never known one to "draw air into and expel it from the lungs". Nor, more broadly, "to take in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide through natural processes". That's only natural in monkey business, ass-backward in daily plant affairs. They may "live" and meet Definition 3 or "pause and rest before continuing" for Definition 4, but by mine and Merriam's understanding, trees do not breathe. Not really. Only as the reeds whisper in the wind, as sunflowers face the sun, as mountains overlook valleys. Bunch of "poetic hippie crap", in other words. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:43, May 14, 2019 (UTC)

Regarding murder-categories in articles about crimesEdit

I have previously seen you remove murder-categories from articles about crimes (for example here, here and here). Should articles about crimes not have murder-categories if the suspect(s) have neither pleaded guilty nor been convicted yet? I am mainly asking because, at the time of this writing, I can think of several articles that contain murder-categories despite the articles (at the time of this writing) not making any mention of the suspect(s) having pleaded guilty or having been convicted. For example, at the time of this writing, the 2014 Harris County shooting-article has the "2014 murders in the United States"-category and the "Mass murder in 2014"-category, but if the suspect in that case has pleaded guilty or been convicted, I see no mention of that in the article (at least not at the time of this writing). Should those articles have their murder-categories removed until the suspect(s) have been convicted or pleaded guilty? Heart of Destruction (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles about any alleged crime should not be categorized as crimes if the suspect(s) have neither pleaded guilty nor been convicted yet. It's as true for petty theft as it is for murder, though calling someone a murderer before they've been tried is more serious and warrants the most attention. As you point out, not everything that's important and deserving of attention gets it. Other articles do get it, but are quickly and/or repeatedly reverted by someone who doesn't understand basic legal concepts. These sometimes drag on into longer disputes that attract all sorts, or simply remain prejudicial, opinionated and harmful.
I've fixed the Harris County case. I wouldn't (and you shouldn't) be surprised if it comes unfixed. Thanks for noticing, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:28, May 14, 2019 (UTC)

So would it be okay if I were to remove murder-categories from articles about crimes where the article neither mentions a guilty plea or conviction on the part of the accused and added an edit summary like "As far as I can tell, going by this article (at the time of this writing), (insert suspect(s) name(s)) has neither pleaded guilty nor been convicted yet, so it violates WP:BLPCRIME to include murder-categories at this time. Therefore, I removed the (insert name of relevant murder-category)-category."? Heart of Destruction (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's very OK. All the power to you. Might be simpler to not personalize each, especially if you're doing a bunch, but far be it from me to nitpick someone else's summary. Removing the prejudice is the important thing, though you'll probably find people who think keeping it in is important, too. It's a tougher job than it seems it should be, but site policy and global conventions are on your side. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 15:30, May 14, 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I made a bunch of such edits (See here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Are those edits okay? Heart of Destruction (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Perfect. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:58, May 15, 2019 (UTC)

There are some other articles that I would like to hear your opinion on. Specifically: Should an article about a suspected serial killer that goes by the suspect's name rather than a nickname not have murder-categories if said suspect has neither pleaded guilty nor been convicted yet? In this case, I am thinking about the Juan David Ortiz-article which (at the time of this writing) goes by the suspect's name and includes the "2018 murders in the United States"-category but which (at the time of this writing) makes no mention of a guilty plea or conviction on the part of the suspect. Should the "2018 murders in the United States"-category be removed from that article until he either is convicted or pleads guilty? Secondly, what about articles about criminals with nicknames where a person suspected of being that criminal has been arrested but has neither pleaded guilty or been convicted yet? Such as the Golden State Killer-article, the Visalia Ransacker-article, the Maryvale serial shooter-article and the Seminole Heights serial killer-article, all of which (at the time of this writing) include murder-categories and mention a suspect having been arrested, but none of which (at the time of this writing) mention the suspects having pleaded guilty or having been convicted. Should their murder-categories be removed until the suspects have either been convicted or pleaded guilty? Heart of Destruction (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

No person should be categorized as a murder or crime from any year, because murders and crimes are always events and never people. Whether they're still innocent or proven guilty is just gravy on top of that. You have my absolute blessing to fix them all. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, May 19, 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I have removed the "2018 murders in the United States"-category from Juan David Ortiz's article (See here). As for the others, I would like to ask you if this edit summary would be acceptable: "Going by this article (at the time of this writing), a suspect has been arrested in the case, but the article (at the time of this writing) makes no mention of a conviction or guilty plea on the part of the suspect, so it violates WP:BLPCRIME to include murder-categories at this time. Therefore, I removed the (insert name of relevant murder-category)-category". Does that sound okay? Heart of Destruction (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It does. I think you know enough to not need any more permission or validation. Follow your heart, Heart. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:39, May 21, 2019 (UTC)
Don't sulk, Hulk. Make a plan, Stan. EEng 06:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Why try, guy? Let it happen, cap'n! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:05, May 22, 2019 (UTC)

Re: We're both rightEdit

Haha, I thought he was quite alive after being smashed against the wall... anyway... waiting for the final episode! Cheers!! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Plot summary for The Iron ThroneEdit

EDIT: Crap, I just realized there's a talk page for the article itself. Moving my question there. Sorry about that!

Anatashala (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No worries. I'd already ignored the notification to talk with you there first. Small world. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Bear Went Over the Mountain (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

How much longer till you can figure it out on your own, poor bot? Bears don't race. Bears don't race! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, June 7, 2019 (UTC)

It will be a tragedy of biblical proportions...Edit

... if you don't say something at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Obsessive_SPA_on_a_Hulk_crusade. EEng 01:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

But no pressure, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, June 7, 2019 (UTC)
I think I went a bit heavy with the "court" gimmick, but perhaps "subverted" your expectations enough to be "ironic" or "absurd". I don't even know anymore, man. Maybe comedy and tragedy just weren't meant to mix, like how you never see satyrs in serious drama anymore. Or maybe beer simply is better than weed, at least as a cure for the performance anxiety a subpoena brings. I recently uncovered salacious hearsay testimony that Norm Macdonald himself once got so high he closed with a joke he'd already told the same crowd. So at least I'm not that guy...Right? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:07, June 7, 2019 (UTC)

Current eventsEdit

Hi friend! Yes, Japan is not part of the B-team but please read Zarif's tweet where he includes PM Abe in the accusation. Kindest regards. --LLcentury (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

He includes Abe in the diplomacy he accuses the B-Team of sabotaging. Big difference. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:19, June 14, 2019 (UTC)

Perfectly understood my friend, poor Abe, trying to do his best yet he's backlash by a torpedo on one of his national ships LOL. --LLcentury (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry please that I bother you again, but the tweet says including by @AbeShinzo. From my lack English, isn't "by" a form of "por" in Spanish? I mean, including his fault? Kindest regards. --LLcentury (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
It means diplomacy, including by/por Abe. He made a new tweet to clarify, so you weren't the only one confused. I think you can understand the new version, and so can Abe. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:15, June 14, 2019 (UTC)

Listen to WikipediaEdit

Hi there,

Why doesn't [5] this appear to work on Mac OS? I had the sound turned up. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:94BB:A44E:C44B:F77D (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

No clue. It worked for my Mac, last I checked, and works on this other device now. Needs Javascript enabled, if that helps. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, June 24, 2019 (UTC)

Current events/2019 June 25Edit

Sorry about constantly adding the section on Stonewall 50 – WorldPride NYC 2019. I thought today was Tuesday, and that tomorrow was Wednesday. Guess I’ll just wait another day to add it. 76.80.178.3 (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries. I used to get this Saturday and last Saturday mixed up biweekly (at least). Everything is always clearer tomorrow! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, June 25, 2019 (UTC)
mixed up biweekly – You certainly are mixed up. Bisexual Awareness Week is in September. EEng 13:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Only since I've become unattractive to both sexes, though. Somebody else's problem now. Is there a week yet where it's socially acceptable to just hammer one out in two minutes alone, no strings attached? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, June 27, 2019 (UTC)
No week, but National Masturbation Day lasts a whole month internationally. It was last month, though, so I should probably shut my damn dirty mouth. Go Canada Day instead! InedibleHulk (talk) 12:16, June 30, 2019 (UTC)
Probably wise. I think that first one might get pulled. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Heh..."Luke Johnson". InedibleHulk (talk) 14:16, June 30, 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Casualty lists essayEdit

I've started an essay at Wikipedia:Casualty lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that I would like your input on if possible, or at the least, for you to watchlist it and help me maintain it. I believe we can provide a good rationale there for including names in the victim section of appropriate articles, and perhaps this can be a jumping off point for starting a project-wide conversation on the issue. If you can make any improvements, or have suggestions, don't hesitate to reach out. Thank you! —Locke Coletc 04:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems interesting. Possibly frustrating. Can't commit to anything right now, I'm walking into the forest tomorrow. Normally come back, but I've heard tell of those who don't. We'll see what's what! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, August 5, 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Which bear will dare to fight with Hulk ? BTW just curious what anti-bear measures are you taking ? --DBigXray 05:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll wave my hands in the air like I just don't care. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, August 5, 2019 (UTC)
And jump around. Jump around! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, August 5, 2019 (UTC)
Hahah, like this ? --DBigXray 05:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Respond. or did the bear get you ? --DBigXray 11:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
He threw a looping left, telegraphed it by a mile, so I ducked. Couple of overhand rights, an atomic drop and one Axe Bomber later, I'm dining on turtle soup! But no bears or taily-pos, sadly. Must've been washing their hair. Next time! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, August 10, 2019 (UTC)
  Looks like they watch a lot of WWE. Hope your trip was fun. I just finished watching The Haunting of Hill House (TV series) and I wish it did not end. Not that the ending was bad, but the series was very entertaining. --DBigXray 07:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Not exactly fun, more just refreshing/relaxing. Mornings invariably sucked. Glad you liked your show, better to end well than drag on aimlessly for years just because it's still watchable. Unless it's WWE or The Simpsons, I mean. Just a little wet, they're still good! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:19, August 10, 2019 (UTC)
Says here you get another season. But so did American Horror Story fans. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, August 10, 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Agree, the wandering in the woods is always relaxing (as long as You dont meet the bears and the tigers (in India)). Yes, it did end well. I read a comment somewhere (Youtube or somewhere) that Hill House was everything that AHS wanted but could not be. I have not seen AHS yet, is it worth watching ? Yes, Hill house will have another season with the same actors but another novel's story, but that will come in 2020.--DBigXray 08:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I recommend the first season. Best long ghost story I ever saw, and also the longest good one. Watch the next three if you want, but after that there's no reason or excuse to carry on. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:58, August 10, 2019 (UTC)
And just so you (and the peanut gallery) know, no turtles were actually harmed. I didn't even steal berries or fish, just packed sandwiches and juice from my fridge. I may be hard by first-world standards, but I couldn't do a bear's job for a week, much less for life. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:26, August 10, 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, will try to see the first 4 seasons someday. So you are saying you carried a week's load of juice and sandwiches with you. Thats a lot of sandwiches and considering the fact that bears can sniff upto 20 miles you should be considering yourself lucky that no bear asked you to share. --DBigXray 10:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Only three days (two nights). And bears around here really are timid, pretty puny as well. The wolves and cougars are a different story, but the egg salad stench seemingly disguises my fresh meaty aroma (for now). Centipedes aren't fooled, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:24, August 10, 2019 (UTC)

Nice to meet youEdit

  Thanks
I see you think you all smart and stuff ~ to be able to read half the source sideways and things like that ~ you see I broke my neck in 'the accident' ~ I'm glad I have people like you, whom I can trust ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Gotta read with your hips, not your spine. Trust me on that much, anyway. Get well soon! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, August 10, 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries at Frank DuxEdit

Hi InedibleHulk. I'm confused by your edit summaries over at Frank Dux. Can you explain what you mean by "Not his function or anything" and "Another past claim, we just keep remembering it". Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Someone who "says" something does it regularly enough to define them, I think. The cow says moo, Joey Lawrence says whoa, a talking scale says your weight. But Dux isn't near that perpetual about it. He said his side of his story a few times, but if you met him, he wouldn't introduce himself as the Kumite winner and Tanaka's student. It's only us (the public) who remember it so persistently about him years later, because Bloodsport. Claims, states, says...all too infinite, regardless of formality.
Maybe "has said" works better to get across the "said it a few times" aspect? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:29, August 14, 2019 (UTC)
"According to Dux" is better, good call. I'd rather "him" than "Dux" since it's less repetitive, but no big deal. Fair compromise, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:41, August 14, 2019 (UTC)
That makes sense, thanks for your response. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
My pleasure. Never forget, though, it works the other way around with media. When a magazine, film or podcast says something, it damn well "says" it till every copy is destroyed (choose-your-own-adventure books and video games are complicated and I steadfastly refuse to hold many opinions about them). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, August 15, 2019 (UTC)

"Hulk Hogan 2020 presidential campaign" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hulk Hogan 2020 presidential campaign. Since you had some involvement with the Hulk Hogan 2020 presidential campaign redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Beirut drone crashesEdit

The Lebanese Prime Minister and Hezbollah have called this incident an attack today.1 Israel Gov has not confirmed or denied involvement, Israeli media claims it was a deliberate attack.2 Even claiming the suicide drone type that was used.3

With all these taken to mind I have renamed the 2019 Beirut drone attack. If you have any second thoughts about this please discuss it before removing infobox and renaming the article. Bill497 (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

We're currently at "crash", implying one didn't happen (intentionally or not). This is getting too confusing to care about much longer, I think. But whatever happened didn't happen in the Persian Gulf, that's for sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, August 26, 2019 (UTC)

HiEdit

Um, is there anything I can do to help [6]? EEng 14:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Besides learning everything you can about how professional wrestling shapes the realms of food, sex, death, religion and politics, I'm afraid not. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, September 2, 2019 (UTC)
I'll get right on it. EEng 00:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
See? I'm already suspending disbelief! You're a natural, kid. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, September 3, 2019 (UTC)
If you two are Ax and Smash, can I be Crush? Three-time WWF World Tag-Team Champions. Think about it. Levivich 06:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Are you tall enough to be Crush? Otherwise, we'll just look like two Smashes. That didn't work in 1987, and we'd be moondogs to think it gets over today. I'm about Repo Man's height, on account of the hunch, but nowhere near "Ax thick" lately. Let's capture the gold as Doinks on a Mission, brah. Or wait, no, let me sleep on your idea! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:41, September 3, 2019 (UTC)
After having carefully weighed the pros and cons of this proposed unholy alliance, I can say with near-absolute certainty that, in this day and age, consenting adults should not be barred from joining forces as derivative works of legendary factions associated with registered trademarks of Titan Sports, Marvel Comics or any other such thing the world is watching based on either the physical stature they were born with or the approximate proportions they later adopted, insofar as it pertains to balancing out perceived dark influence of road warriors, heart foundations and/or colossal connections in this particular online virtual marketplace of freely-licensed contribution and dirty politics.
In short, I can be anything I want. And so can you. Smash, Crush, Blast...all fair game for fair use, sky's the limit. Until EEng drinks the Kool-Aid, though, I fear he or she must naturally "be frank here" for a moment. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, September 3, 2019 (UTC)
 
Actual caption from this actual image, in the article Kool Aid:
The building in Hastings, Nebraska, where Kool-Aid was invented
By God, I wish I understood 1/10 of what you're saying. EEng 22:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I just made it marginally clearer. Innumerable colossal connections. Everything makes slightly more sense in time, don't give up! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, September 3, 2019 (UTC)
As long as we can wear spiked shoulder pads, I'm happy. Levivich 14:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I still have two pair of foam and plastic merch versions in storage (wristbands, too). Been a long time, though, mice might've recycled them. A bit weird how the WWF never had mouse gimmicks, just that possum who thought he was a sewer rat. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:51, September 4, 2019 (UTC)

wtfEdit

Is this really helpful? Does juvenile obnoxiousness become acceptable when laced with wry humor? ―Mandruss  08:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

No more helpful than a taunting acronym or schoolyard rhyme. But yeah, a spoonful of sugar does help the medicine go down. Not the most delightful way this time, on account of the run-in, but sometimes a man has to do what the kid inside thinks might be funny.
Seriously though, while we're teaming up to rag on senses of humour, you should probably drop the coy schtick and just tell Bus stop straight-up what you're playing at with this "arguable privacy concerns" nonsense. A lot of us have seen you go back to the well with it, but you've never actually set it up with anything resembling a premise, as best I recall. Until you do, it comes across less like an amusing allusion and more like the sort of opaque running joke apparently designed to fuck with the audience (like Norm Macdonald's non-sequiturs about Frank Stallone and the Germans, but without even a semblance of intent via inflection or facial expression).
I don't think anybody on Team Reliable Sources is kidding when we say we would jump to Team Arbitrary Censorship if you'd just stop being a wiseguy and dumb your reasoning down into layman's terms for us. When has prudently relaying a publicly-identified dead person's name and age adversely affected a relative's privacy, and how? No fantasy, no feelings, no tiptoeing through the tulips. Just tell us the brutal honest truth, Tony! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:00, September 3, 2019 (UTC)
dumb your reasoning down into layman's terms for us - Ha! This, from the recognized master of creative but confusing wordplay and obscure cultural references, anything but straightforward plain talk. Jane, that's rich.
I'm quite sure I and others have talked – sometimes at some length – about the general desire for anonymity in a crazy world, that one's name does not become public property when they die, and that the privacy concerns extend to the families of the dead. You weren't convinced then, and I doubt you would be convinced now. I'm the first to admit that it's not the strongest part of my argument, hence the word "arguable". Still worth mentioning. I could elaborate in my !vote, but my !vote is already one of the longest ones in these discussions, and how much elaboration would be enough? Nor am I going to repeat the same elaboration in discussion after discussion to satisfy the demands of editors who have already rejected it multiple times.
Like a few others, you seem to think there is a correct answer to the question of victims names lists. ―Mandruss  02:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
We're both a little elaborate for our own good sometimes, but deep down, I think we both also remember the old days, when things were whats and people were whos. So much simpler, so much surer. We'd hop on down to the soda shop, get smoked by a bus and our families would publish their current (our former) home addresses in case our friends, acquaintances and local necrophiles wanted to stop by and stare at our corpses one last time, maybe a little touch on our ex-hands, a peck on the shells of our foreheads and/or judgmental browsing of our hearths, mantles and curio cabinets (used to find great deals at wakes, now they're all online).
But enough preambling, let's get down to business. If a name is personal property, the bearer loses it when they die. Same as your car, your cat and your pantaloons. You can will those to your kin, or even establish a trusteeship jealously guarding your forbidden closet of mystery in perpetuity, but you can't pass on your used identity. Tony Jr. can keep your vague privacy concerns alive in spirit, but if he claims your DOB, DOD and SIN, he'd be arrested for fraud. Tony Tomato Sr. (1911-20xx) will always be you and you won't care a bit when you're dead, which you will be and already have been for 100% of your time on Earth (rounded, of course). If we wanted to name survivors, their concerns would and do matter to me, you and anyone bound by BLP. But IDing the dead is different from IDing the living, because the names and ages don't match.
But enough midambling, I'm glad we both agree that part of your argument is weak and dying, if not essentially unborn from the start. You used to love it, and if any part of you still does, you'll help us end its suffering. Would you rather Jim Michael and associates continue to adopt, stretch, twist and butcher your original conception like it has been? Take my hand, don't fear the reaper and be like we are, dagnabbit! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:05, September 4, 2019 (UTC)
Jumpin' Jehosophat! It's Mark Twain back from the dead and learnt how to write on the wikipedia!
See, I told you you wouldn't be convinced now. I hate being right all the time. Thanks for the invite, but I decline to continue that unwinnable debate with you. I submitted to your demand for re-elaboration (in summary form) but that's all you get. ―Mandruss  09:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Tell ya what, how about a little tit for tat, some quid pro quo? You speak out against that vacuous precedent argument in your !vote in each discussion, and I'll drop the privacy bit from mine. Deal, Jamille? ―Mandruss  12:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
It does seem 90% is a bit too perfect a percentage, and tradition isn't the main thing, though it does exist. I'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Maybe public Western massacre will simply go out of fashion now, and we can all go back to discussing normaler crap in normaler ways. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:38, September 4, 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Mandruss—the number is probably in excess of 90% of "eligible" articles. Countries of the world disseminate information to different degrees. We can't include information not found in sources as tends to be the case in some parts of the world. I hope InedibleHulk doesn't mind me adding my two cents to this discussion. And I agree "tradition isn't the main thing". The "main thing" can be articulated but I'm reluctant to write a wall of text on someone's Talk page as to why we should adhere to reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Make yourself at home. I'll be back in a week or so. Just don't delete any walls, that's the main problem with guests. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, September 12, 2019 (UTC)
Forgot my hat. Skim the archives if you get bored, help yourselves to the widget round back, create new sections liberally. Just for the love of all that's good and pure, stay out of my sandbox! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:53, September 13, 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "InedibleHulk".