User talk:InedibleHulk

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

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!

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 achievements

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 24

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 2018

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 move

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 addicitons

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 15

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 Events

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 22

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 22

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...

I guess it would be obtuse to go with something like INEDIBILEHULK^{WHATCHA GONNA DO BROTHER!?} ...Oh well. GMG^talk 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. GMG^talk 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 sanctions

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.

Template:Z33 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 --DBigXrayᗙ 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--DBigXrayᗙ 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 missing

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 alert

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.

Template:Z33 DBigXrayᗙ 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

--DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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 2018

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. DBigXrayᗙ 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 --DBigXrayᗙ 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 Times

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 title

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 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC) Ok lets be friends — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shibe08 (talk • contribs) 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 up

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 source

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 7

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?

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 2018

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 DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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 crash

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 Signature

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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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"--DBigXrayᗙ 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 message

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)

Trump

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 Rashid

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)

• Thanks. You knew him? starship.paint ~ KO 08:24, 2 April 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)

• Oh, okay. Alright! Thanks Hulk! starship.paint ~ KO 12:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Trout

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 me

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 crash

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)

Civility

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 breathe

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 crimes

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 right

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 Throne

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 4

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...

... 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 events

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 Wikipedia

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 25

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 essay

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 Cole • t • c 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 ? --DBigXrayᗙ 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 ? --DBigXrayᗙ 05:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Respond. or did the bear get you ? --DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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.--DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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 you

	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 Dux

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 discussion

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 crashes

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)

Hi

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)

wtf

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)

Wish

Hello. Help copy edit and proofreading the article Akane Yamaguchi. Thanks you very much. Sefxeg (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Did a bit in the lead. Seems like a damn fine player. Thanks for the awareness. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, September 30, 2019 (UTC)

Mix metaphor much?

A seven-headed sea? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Damn skippy, bush kangaroo! Two of the "eye lands" lie in ANZUS, the other twelve are a bit harder to see. If Marilyn Manson can mix iconography and Annie Lennox can mix gender illusions, why can't I unseparate political geography from apocalyptic myth? Because it offends your traditional St. Georgian Brown sensibilities? Well, I remember the nights we walked along the Seine, Tony, riding on the Metro! I can see you now, smiling as you swam away!

Wait no, false memory. That was Disney's The Little Mermaid®. We've been through a lot together, too, though. I'm a bit disappointed you didn't "catch my drift" on the whole numerological submarine undertones of my whimsical summary judgement on something so innocent as the ramblings of sea foam crashing against a lighthouse like so many Trident missiles fading into the horizon of an old premise stretched thin to the point of breaking bad before suddenly snapping back to the rejuvenating reelasticizing revelation at the centre of the whole "Now is the winter of our discontent" thing going on in America since Dusty Rhodes was swallowed up like so much dark and twisted Bathory Tonic not so long ago.

Come on! It's right there in the subtext. The President of the these United States is obviously a...??? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:27, September 30, 2019 (UTC)

I'm onto you. You're not a human but a random word generator. At least they programmed you with something resembling a sense of humor, unlike IBM's Watson. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Or Deep Blue. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:46, September 30, 2019 (UTC)

Upon further review, that album wasn't as bleak, noisy and miserable as its track listing and cover made it seem. I don't know how that makes me feel. It's not existential angst, I'll tell you that much. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:05, September 30, 2019 (UTC)

Date link in signature

Greetings InedibleHulk! I noticed that the date in your signature gets displayed in U.S. format, and with links to the date and year. Links to dates have long been deprecated on this wiki, and I'm not sure whether U.S. format may mess up some scripts. I have never seen another user signature in this format. Could you check what's going on? — JFG ^talk 17:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. First off, that's Canadian form; minor distinction, but still. Entirely by design, no glitch or bug. Promotes education by facilitating easier access to the current (GMT) day's historical anniversaries, at the expense of a bot's ability to track my posts chronologically. In five years' practice, the worst that happens is a Talk Page section I start doesn't get archived if nobody replies; quite rare, and easily solveable by me deleting that section. On a human level, the very sight of it makes the odd editor uneasy, confused or almost angry (I think you're the seventh to bring it up), but I feel the same about your people's backward Old World dates, so we cancel out, ethically. You dig? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:59, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

First off, that's Canadian form – Is that really a useful distinction given that Canada is a wholly owned subsidiary of the US? EEng 11:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

If America wants to stay hard, it needs to drink water, burn oil and get wood. All Canada needs is drugs, money and a military capable of keeping the damn Scots, French, Welsh, English and Vikings away from our beavers, syrup and softly singing shores. Who's verily got whom by what where it counts for, innit? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:31, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

thanks for the rephrasing

looks much better Axedel (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. Exoneration, absolution and aquittal are well and good for fighting off detectives, demons and district attorneys, but I can't think of the perfect word for being cleared of political editorial allegation. I suppose there is no escape from pressecution, only surrender. In theory, he could play his sedition card, declare an emergency and round up dissidents for "questioning", but unless he unplugs the States from the Internet, some anonymous source would just say he's worse than Stalin, and the beef is back up for debate. Unlike Crusius, Trump's rhetoric indicates nuclear fucking obliteration is always "on the table", whether to normalize Korean relations, neutralize a high-pressure hurricane or renegotiate a 40-year-old Islamic Revolution.

If Degeneration X can drive a fake tank to CNN headquarters and demand satisfaction on Clinton's watch, this on-screen WWE President and "student of the game" may well understand how "huge" a number sending in a real invasion force might pop in the 24/7 Ratings War one fateful Monday night in late November sweeps. I'd watch it live on Al Jazeera and catch the midnight replay on Fox, maybe even watch a TNT encore presentation with the familia at 11:05 on Christmas Day in the morning!

Are you not even even a little "down with that"? If so, I've just got two words for ya: Super Invader! That's right, the TBS SuperStation was poisoning the well in Atlanta all the way back in '92, when Ross Perot was still a thing? And who was the dastardly heel under the mask? Czech-Canadian soccer sensation Tom Boric? No, Kato snuck in earlier on The Orient Express. Explosive Boricuan death squad captain Juan Rivera? Good guess, but Kwang and his dreaded red Asian beetle mist were just lingering spillover effects from Adam Bomb. Was it that dirty Jewish Italian jobber Steve Abe 'Knuckleball' Schwarz Lombardi? A likely suspect, but Kimchee Doink's " up north" all day, baby, watertight alibi.

No, they pinned the blame on Ray Fernandez, hoping nobody would notice he's as white as disputed and uncounted Floridan millenial apple pie (as well as a self-identified reincarnation of ancient Athenian demigod). Long story short, if you're looking for a catalyst to this New Generation "invasion angle", look back to the revolutionary force in sports entertainment. For over sixty years, foreign interference has been what the world is watching! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, October 8, 2019 (UTC)

Trump WW2 Turkey

What is this about [7]? It sounds as if you are mocking the editor for using "us" as if he is using it in the first person as a WP editor. But he is quoting Trump, as reported in Washington Post. At any rate your comment is unclear but it sounds mocking and you might consider striking or removing it. SPECIFICO talk 23:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Not mocking, it's just a poor choice (as is calling modern Kurds in a different theatre "them"). If he or Trump means Eisenhower's soldiers, they should say so. If they mean Republicans or voters or Americans, same deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, October 10, 2019 (UTC)

And the writers thing? That was a crap comment to put on an article talk page. In my opinion you should remove the whole thing and make sure to confine future comments to article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned your restoration of the lies I corrected in a new Talk section. Try to leave your opinions out of this one. And let's not forget we're work friends. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, October 11, 2019 (UTC)

You know ~ I googled turkeys in WWII and the only thing I found ~ was about some sergeant that that used to hunt turkeys before he was drafted into the war ~ is that what you'all are talking about because I'm confused. ~mitch~ (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about Gobbledy Gooker, with a bit of Mercenaries vs Alliance thrown in for good measure. Survivor Series 1990, in other words. But we've moved on, regardless of my delusion. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, October 11, 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to insert this last piece of knowledge ~ but it was Alvin York ~ Hi InedibleHulk! ~mitch~ (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Dammit man, you have nothing to be sorry about, pull yourself together!!! Knowledge is power, and hell hath no power to shine light on a dimming situation than a man who dares hunt the most elusive bird in the whole wild kingdom. I can see why Carter was thankful to pardon the four he did, rather than risk entering its wintry den of inequity and slumber, just to lose it all on account of some Michigan wolverine who was never supposed to be there yet in the first place. Wait, what?!? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, October 11, 2019 (UTC)

A request: Could you please try to be less cryptic in your posts at Talk:Donald Trump? I can't figure out what you're talking about half the time, and I don't think it's helping with everything else going on there. ~Awilley (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I am speaking plainly there, at least was actually trying. I can try harder. But it won't be easy. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, October 11, 2019 (UTC)

At the "Disputed Syria Lies" section, I've read that like 3 times now and the only thing I'm coming away with is that it seems like you're trying to pick fights with SPECIFICO and Markbasset. Other than that I have no idea what you're talking about. There's no context, no diffs, no substantive proposals for any modifications to the article... just something about a bunch of things being lies. ~Awilley (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, I see the problem and how you can help. There was a reversion at 00:03 today. Everything you need to know going in is in there, but I can't paste a diff, for technical reasons. Can you? It might save others the same confusion. I like SPECIFICO and wish we could stop fighting about whether he thinks we think differently about these lies we're disputing, and get back to discussing those rationally and kindly. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, October 11, 2019 (UTC)

Done. Two suggestions: 1. it's unnecessarily inflammatory to call it "lies". 2. Both versions seem problematic to me. [puts on editor hat] I haven't been following the news closely enough to know what's Truth, but for our purposes it's usually best to avoid ascribing motivations, period. So we've got

• ...ordered the Pentagon to withdraw U.S. troops from northeast Syria in order to allow Turkey to carry out... versus
• ...ordered the Pentagon to withdraw U.S. troops from northeast Syria in order to save money, allowing Turkey to carry out...

Who are we to say with that kind of certainty what the reason was? Just write:

• ...ordered the Pentagon to withdraw U.S. troops from northeast Syria, allowing Turkey to carry out...

and be done with it. Same goes with the "blindsided" bit. No need to state it in WP voice or cast extra doubt with "anonymous". Just write that Pentagon officials were reported to have felt blindsided. ~Awilley (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

That "blindsided" bit could work in the passive voice, but it might beg the question of who reported the claim to whom. Likewise, we could just omit the stated financial reason, and hope readers don't assume America and Turkey are cooperating in the ethnic cleanup operation. But when these details are readily available inline, it seems we should share them, rather than just not make up an opposite claim. It's a start, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:09, October 11, 2019 (UTC)

Hey Mitch, Great News! I have this friend from the Isle of Parts Unknown who's well-schooled in the ancient Oriental mysteries of conflict resolution, foreign management and skillfully escaping the all-mighty eye of the incompetent oblivious official. He's decided to handle our political affairs pro bono. As luck would have it, he's not just the cheapest, not just the coolest, he's just incredible! No relation to renowned Portuguese Man o' War Aldo Montoya, mind you, but still a mighty fine champion for our Alliance to End Trumpamania/Three Facets of Fear/Dungeon of Vroom or whatever you think our York Foundation should be called. With this wise, impartial bird guiding us, there's no way Bearer can stop Kamala from devouring the racist and sexist connotations that have gnawed at the roots of democracy ever since Democrats decided to run a dying robot against a popular chauvinist instead of just manning up and proposing we commit to a few years under a real American woman of truth, justice and stature. For more information on this and other neverending stories featuring us, the reader, check out the unsolicited classic children's tale I left on esteemed southpaw publishing powerhouse Levivich's desk a few months back. Or, alternatively, carry on ye stalkin' buzzards of perpetual conflict, old and new again! Time for this bird to duck out for seven days of rest in peace! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, October 11, 2019 (UTC)

Hulk, re this talk page post of yours -- I don't see how this contributes to article improvement. Many editors have told you they/we are uncomfortable with these cryptic off-topic posts. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

That one isn't any sort of code/riddle/poem, just an odd bit of reasoning, shabbily expressed. I considered Oldperson's confusion when I summed it up (or broke it down) "in other words". If this other sentence still seems cryptic or off-topic, let me know how and I'll try to simplify further. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:52, October 20, 2019 (UTC)

Your signature. Once more, with feeling.

Mgasparin just had to manually archive a thread that had been idle since 30 September on a page with 7-day archival. The last comments in it were yours. The archive bot serviced the page on 8 October, 9 October, 11 October, 12 October, and 14 October without archiving that thread.

I was aware that your deviant sig was an issue. I think I was aware that the archive bot would not recognize your sigs in deciding when to archive. But I don't think I was aware that your sig could defeat the archive bot completely, permanently preventing auto archive of the thread (and I can't say I understand how that could happen). That's a disruption of the normal functioning of talk spaces, and I don't think editors should have to be inconvenienced – even a little – to accommodate your pet quirk. I think this, combined with the history of comments/objections/complaints on this page, is a clear enough violation of WP:SIGAPP's Your signature must not blink, scroll, or otherwise cause inconvenience to or annoy other editors. (its emphasis). Please fix this at your earliest convenience.

Conformity on this really isn't that painful, Jane, honest. It's a simple matter of finding a non-disruptive alternative way to rebel against society. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

If my signature has strange new flaws, maybe it is time to feel strongly and differently about it. But that's a big "if" and sizeable "maybe". Sometimes systems fuck themselves, you know? "Facts Not in Evidence" seemingly went down smoothly last week, despite my alleged skunkiness. Figure that in and out! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, October 16, 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. How about a test thread on the same page (or any page serviced by Lowercase sigmabot III)? If the system fucks itself again, we can reasonably assume that it enjoys self-fucking, and changing your sig will be the only way to prevent it from fucking itself further (or force it to find a different way to self-fuck). The bot hasn't had anybody willing to modify it in years, and it would be hard to justify modifying it just to accommodate your sig anyway, I think.

If you agree, tell me where you would like the test thread. I'll start the thread with an explanation of what it's about, explaining that nobody should comment after your comment. Then you can add your comment. Then we just wait until the archive interval elapses. Sound like a plan Stan (Jane)? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I suppose. But I'm wary of further testing on the American President. An old person became confused and hostile in "Signature" (to be clear, my support of his new genuine John Hancock illustration is entirely real, despite the ulterior. motive). Let's not test on BLPs at all, but on high-traffic test sites. I've always wanted to settle something once and for all in the California desert, but never had a clue what that might be. Still don't, possibly. You find somewhere busy, I'll say something preposterous and we'll just see who's banished to article space indefinitely. I hope it's not Mitch! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:20, October 17, 2019 (UTC)

Being somewhat fluent in Hulkese, I think you said: 1. Ok, you suppose. 2. Not at Trump. 3. Not at any BLP.

I don't understand "high-traffic test sites", but I think I get the segue from that to California desert, as there is probably a missile firing range or something in the Mojave. Or maybe you meant Edwards. Discarding high-traffic test sites as unintelligible, I'll go try to find a non-BLP serviced by that bot that might work for us. Thank you so much for your input. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Edwards Air Force Base. That was it! But if you insist, we can try to kill my voice elsewhere. I hear Paris does science tres nice in the fall. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:59, October 17, 2019 (UTC)

My non-BLP of choice is Talk:2019 Dayton shooting. Please comment in the thread that I have started there. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I dream of risking retirement in California or Paris, you offer me Dayton. Not even Daytona. Dayton. Downtown Dayton. The murder district. With this year's ghosts. On a Thursday morning. Under discretionary sanctions advisories. I want another divorce, dude. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, October 17, 2019 (UTC)

I asked you to choose and you forced me to instead. I know when I'm being trolled. Ball's in your court and you are free to hold it hostage. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I gave you the choice among dozens or hundreds of California labs, not a BDP page that already has me ending a section in August. You can revert your terrible choice or you can wait in Dayton forever with Bus stop. But I'm not dying there for your lack of imagination. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, October 17, 2019 (UTC)

You coded your comments into riddles that required solving, and I'm afraid my riddle-solving skills were not up to the task. Thanks, but I don't care to play. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, figured you were capable of translating "high-traffic test site" to either somewhere the bot doesn't take months to shuffle off talk or article about a place where tests are conducted. Not "some murder scene we've recently already tried". What is it with us and mass murder, anyway? Did we meet in Aurora? Or was that Masem? Muboshgu? It was one of you "M types". You're free to sleep it off on my virtual couch, maybe we can rekindle our e-reading compatability issues on Monday. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:20, October 17, 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64: As resident archive bot expert, can you offer any insight here? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Sorry for the delay. The first linked example has several questionable signatures, all by InedibleHulk, of which the last one is

[[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 04:16, [[September 30]], [[2019]] (UTC)

which is exactly the same format as all those in this thread by the same user. There are several unusual features here, of which the one that is most likely to cause problems for the archiving bot is the double square brackets around the month/day and around the year. The reverse order for day and month is another possible suspect. This has been pointed out before, and I did comment on the matter myself at 20:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Right, but the thread in question (linked in my OP) had valid signatures dated 28 September and 29 September, so there is no explanation for why it remained unarchived on 15 October. I knew Hulk's sigs caused problems for the archive bot, but I didn't think complete prevention of archival was one of them. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Try this: revert the manual archiving (in both discussion page and its archive), then alter all the timestamps to a valid form, e.g. 04:16, [[September 30]], [[2019]] (UTC) → 04:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC). If the archiving bot archives that thread on its next visit to the page, we then have a clear culprit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Done.[8] ―Mandruss ☎ 01:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hulk: With this new evidence (see the preceding several comments), will you now change your signature to use the standard timestamp? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not quite sold. The bot properly archived my "fixed" comment, which is good, but also properly archived my "not broken" one in "Draft" three days later, which is also good. This evidence damns and clears me in equal parts, so I'm inclined to believe any impartial jury would rightly hang, absent a substantially smokier gun. As we all might remember from the January 18, 1995 (18 janvier 1995) case of The Smoking Gunns v. The New Headshrinkers, a double countout means the defendants retain the title. Is an entire signature a title, in today's context, or just the username part? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:51, November 5, 2019 (UTC)

As to the "clear culprit" premise of this contest, I contend there was and is still reasonable doubt. The system may have fucked itself for any number of reasons on the day in question, and declined to repeat its shameful performance on its second chance after being caught simply for changed variables. Not remorse, of course, but date, page size, archive size, last editor, size of last edit, number of current sections or some entirely more or less complicated comparative value. Plenty changed between now and then, and a computer is more acutely aware of and sensitive to memory fluctuations than human editors with preconceived notions of the so-called real fucker's bugged-up address. Tunnel vision has sent better men than me to worse fates in other rushes to judgment, that much is certain. Socrates, Turing, Slash from Eternal Champions...did the system fail them for nothing? I think not, therefore nuh-uh, no way, not yet! InedibleHulk (talk) 13:11, November 5, 2019 (UTC)

A re-test of the original thread was auto-archived successfully yesterday[9] – the only differences being the addition of an explanatory comment at the beginning, planetary alignments, atmospheric and meteorological conditions, a small movement of the magnetic north pole, etc – so I concede. Thanks for your cooperation, such as it was. I still think you should use the standard timestamp, for the same old reasons:

• Your nonstandard timestamp can result in auto-archival too early if your comment is the most recent. It also defeats a number of tools including one I use, WP:Comments in Local Time. There is a strong argument that the timestamp is essential to normal system operation and is not ours to mess with, despite it being technically possible to mess with it. The fact that messing with it is not specifically prohibited by policy is simply a failure to imagine how it can be done and that anybody would care to do it (and it's hard to justify that considering that there is only one editor in the entire project abusing that absence of policy).
• The project will never run out of new editors who are not aware of the history and will waste their time coming here to ask you to use the standard timestamp. (You're entitled to waste your own time that's necessary to give them decent responses.) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Aye, a bit weird to some and slightly annoying to a few others. But on the whole, my signed comments themselves arguably do more good than harm to Wikipedia, and I'm not just patting myself on the back here to escape the noose. I'll continue to keep the Five Pillars holy and devote what time I must to community service when and if mild confusion results from my selfish insistence on a comfortable work environment.

Have you ever even tried clicking my timestamp? Every day the world begins again, my friend. So much to explore! Who has time to go to the main page or search box, this late in the game? It's a dirty job, but so long as its not proscribed, some lowly pariah dog has to do it. Hear ye, hear ye, the dawn of a new anniversary breaks, can't tell the sixth from the seventh without a program, gather round and get your program here!

Thanks for listening to my defense all these years, anyway, even if a lot of it seemed pointless to you. You're not a wrong person, whoever you really are. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:17, November 6, 2019 (UTC)

Hi, InedibleHulk! Not meaning to beat on a dead horse, but your signature, by placing invalid timestamps, also messes up scripts and gadgets other users have in place. Scripts that let users know how long ago a comment was made, for example, are incompatible with your signature. Your signature also blocks functionality of the Unclutter script. While this isn't a huge inconvenience, it is somewhat annoying, and I think enough users have approached you about this that it warrants some kind of action. I don't use your signature to know which holidays are occurring today, but I do use signatures to know when comments were made, and yours makes that ever so much more difficult. Best, WMSR (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Also just wanted to briefly point out that, per Wikipedia policy (WP:SIGAPP), Your signature must not blink, scroll, or otherwise cause inconvenience to or annoy other editors (emphasis mine). Several editors have expressed their annoyance. WMSR (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I certainly don't intend to annoy anyone with this, and while I'm not very sorry, I am somewhat sorry to bother you. But the things you'd like to do with my signature through tracking scripts and other gadgets aren't my idea of comfort, either. The way your day precedes the month just looks fundamentally wrong to me, no matter how many times I see it, but I don't think it's a big enough annoyance to warrant any drastic action. I just tolerate it or avoid looking. If I can do it for every page I visit, surely you can cope with the odd page we share (what has it been now, two?). I don't mean that in a "suck it up and deal with it" way, but it is rather easy, should you decide to.

Alternatively, we could team up and find a talented programmer who might fix the scripts to recognize my days as valid data. I'd leave a fair bit less happy than I am with the current setup, but you and the other complainants would leave mostly satisfied. You'd just have to deal with seeing forward instead of backward and blue instead of black (if we ever meet again). Do you know a programmer like that?

Anyway, have a merry Feast of the Holy Innocents and let me know how you want to proceed, whenever's good for you. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:45, December 28, 2019 (UTC)

As I read it, Hulk's position can be concisely summarized as:

"I wouldn't be annoyed in your position, so you shouldn't be annoyed. The tools it defeats are not that important to me, so they shouldn't be that important to you. There have been quite a number of editors complaining over the years, and very few if any supporting my signature, but that difference is also fairly unimportant to me. Despite the fact that I'm the only editor in the entire project who does this in their signature, linking to the day and year is more important to the community than any of that. Let's give this another decade or two and see if it catches on."

(Add to that another suggestion that I have not seen before – one that's even more remarkable – that we should ask a script-qualified editor to spend their time adapting tools to accommodate one user's idiosyncratic signature. That's facepalm-worthy pure and simple.)

SIGAPP does NOT say: "Your signature must not blink, scroll, or otherwise cause inconvenience to or annoy other editors in ways that you think are valid."

It may be time we took this to the community for comment on the merits of Hulk's position, but I'll wait for traction. I guess WP:ANI would be the appropriate venue – a more immediate risk of sanction(s) may be the only way to persuade Hulk to use the standard signature. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Linking to the day and year are not important to the community. What's important is the shit I say before that Wikilink appears. At least as important as what others say on Talk Pages. If I'm stuck between using the standard signature and vanishing into the wilderness, I already told you, I'd prefer to die in February. Not a goddamned "decade or a two". You've consistently only understood half of what I say since I met you, and I respect that. But if anyone's going to sum me up in front of a jury, I never want it to be you. I'll agree to this rush trial of a so-called "ignorant slut" if a prosecutor with a less-obvious conflict of interest in seeing this babbling bitch hang fires the first shot. WMSR, maybe. I'd still rather wait till early 2020, if it please the community. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:05, December 28, 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I failed to express the full nuance of your position, and it escapes me what the format of the signature timestamp has to do with the shit you say before that Wikilink appears (perhaps you'd indulge my thick-headedness and explain that). But rest assured that if this goes to ANI you can express your position in your own words, including AGF-failing diversionary references to obvious conflict of interest (as if the victims' names issue has one iota to do with my position on your signature) and impressive-sounding alliterative ad hominems about babbling bitches. If you chose to hold your future contributions hostage over such a minor issue, that would be unfortunate but up to you. It might well even succeed. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You and I both know you can't think of one reason you'd miss me, so don't play the "unfortunate" card. And you've never been sorry for your failure to communicate, you keep trying to pass it off as my fault. I know I'll be granted an opportunity to defend myself, you thick-headed, indulgent public nuisance! And you'll have a chance to interject walls of testimony as to the unsavouriness and incredulity of my character; I openly and knowingly consent to a full-scale badgering, and will defend your right to never drop the stick and let somone else talk. Just don't start it. Let one of your six co-accusers do it. You tried to start something complicated at the idea lab, how'd that go? Down in flames in a hurry? If I've ever been guilty of anything, it's of not wanting to see you hurt yourself too much or too often. Is that so wrong? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:57, December 28, 2019 (UTC)

I would really prefer not to go to ANI. That said, Wikipedia has a clear policy on this, and you seem content to openly violate it. I concede that Mandruss perhaps didn't provide the most eloquent retort, but nevertheless made several important points. With all due respect, you do not decide whether other editors are "caused annoyance" by your signature.

Regardless, rest assured your signature is not what defines you; nobody will ignore your comments because you use the standard signature. After all, you responded to my message despite my plain old signature! As I am sure you know, nobody will leave ANI feeling any better about the situation, and what the community is asking you for is not a significant endeavor on your part (unlike recruiting somebody to rewrite myriad scripts in order to accommodate your signature). I'm sure plenty of editors would be glad to help you craft a different, unique signature. Best, WMSR (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not deciding whether you're annoyed, you said you were and I believe you. I just meant the alternative that's less annoying for you would be more annoying to me. We kind of cancel each other out, in that regard. I openly violate the policy only in the same way I used to smoke pot in public; convinced of a near-future where it won't be a punishable offence because it never really hurt anyone in the past. Just a bit of an odd smell, a little confusion and a nice chat with a stranger that really makes one think. Thanks for that last paragraph, I actually felt a bit inspired to change for a minute. I never wanted to hurt a codemonkey, I figured they volunteered here because they like monkeying with code. Could be wrong. Let me sleep on it? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:57, December 28, 2019 (UTC)

OK here are some feelings ~

I edited El C here and I got the wrong TV show in the summary, it should have been this one Friends. What can I do ~ what can I do.. ~ by the way Hi InedibleHulk! ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Mandruss! ~mitch~ (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

  LOL. Hey, ~mitch~! ―Mandruss ☎ 01:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, laddies! Mitch, I assure you your summary is doomed to an eternity of apparent nonsense, but with time you can forgive yourself and grow. I've thrice noticed (a moment too late) my own summaries ending in two periods, and still occasionally dread someone mistaking that for a malformed ellipsis. But it has gotten easier to tell myself it's no big deal, and knowing others share my pain helps to an extent. We'll pull through this, one day at a time, or at least die trying. Cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:40, October 16, 2019 (UTC)

Matthew Wong

Hello! Just a note to say I reverted the removal of the lede statement on Matthew Wong. I also toned it down a bit. I think it's accurate and supported by the sources. For example the New York Times ran an obit for a 35 year old painter, which is remarkable. In it they said "Matthew Wong, a promising self-taught painter whose vibrant landscapes, forest scenes and still lifes were just beginning to command attention and critical acclaim, died on Oct. 2 in Edmonton, Alberta." Artforum said "Though his distinctive painting style has been variously compared to those of Vincent van Gogh, Georges Seurat, Chris Ofili, and Peter Doig..." Artnews said "With just three solo shows and a handful of star turns in group exhibitions, Wong established himself as a quicksilver talent, with an almost preternatural sense for creating gripping, idiosyncratic scenes..." Art Asia Pacific said "The self-taught painter’s breakout show came several years later at Karma, his representative gallery in New York, where his Post-Impressionist canvases garnered widespread acclaim."

I might have overstated the acclaim in the lede and have toned it down. But... I think it's pretty accurate, as these are the critics and they have acclaimed his work as excellent. And they are not mickey mouse critics, these are near the top of the art crititism food chain. If you have ideas about how to make the lede more neutral but still reflect the recognition, let me know! Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Leads are meant to summarize the body, and this body notes no critical acclaim (but a pleased curator). I suggest creating a Reception section, using the stuff you showed me here, or at least tacking those reviews onto the lead sentence. No need to repeat when he died and how old immediately after the opening line with his vital dates. Other than that, I suppose he was somewhat acclaimed, though not compared to more successful painters. Hard to judge, as a very casual art fan who knows even less of the artists behind the scenes. I'll defer to you on whether it belongs in the lead or only the body. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:24, November 6, 2019 (UTC)

After

Well, InedibleHulk, it seems we're a voice crying in the wilderness, or at least our voice is falling on deaf ears. I fear trying to resist this misuse of "after" is a lost cause, along with "I could care less" and "the proof is in the pudding". But for the sake of my blood pressure I guess I'll stop there. Thanks for weighing in! Cheers, Awien (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Coincidentally, Krokus is telling me to "fight on" while I respond to your surrender. Discretion may be the better part of valour, but screw it! I'll give up if nothing happens after two more friendly battles. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, November 13, 2019 (UTC)

Alas, yes, once the opening act recognises that the finger in the dike against mangled language is mere tilting at windmills. This Sisyphus is basically through with spitting into the wind, but from failing hands I wish you luck. Cheers! Awien (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

You would find out in future

...That you were sitting on the fence and leading the fence sitters. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

If only they'd followed my example of not screaming NEUTRAL in a clearly demarcated neutral zone. I thought I made myself pretty clear on the futility of it all. Guess that's just why I'M NUMBER ONE where it counts, at the top, first place, eat my disinterested dust, leaners! Seriously, before #2 came along, I was just a literal zero on the scoreboard. I owe that cold unfeeling number everything. But I'm not stepping off the gas for a second, not even for a lack of caring one way or the other. He'd do the same to me, and that's what makes our race the superior race. Good old-fashioned predeterminism and a hint of artificial hootzpah. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:16, November 15, 2019 (UTC)

Glad to know that we have at least one smart ass who knows about the inutile bolded text when the section are marked. Can't blame any one as we have a habit of using bold font while !voting in AfD and rfc, and yours truly is no exception. I have seen folks using weak and strong as adjectives in their votes which to some extent makes sense, if at all someone cares about it. But weak neutral and strong neutral are just as neutral as the plain old neutral, or you can skip it all and omit it altogether like our smart-ass did. You may now, pat on your back, as though its from me.

FWIW, you are number 3 serially, but the other two above have already jumped ship leaving u on the pole position. But it doesn't take away the fact that you are currently leading them, based on the numbering. Hence all that basking in the glory seems to be well deserved. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer Chaotic neutral or Lawful neutral over "weak" or "strong" neutrals. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on whether they're party members or monsters. You don't want your quest for the crown running out of gold because somebody can't stop chugging all the potion. Then again, killing imps and slime all day isn't going to net much experience. I vote Strong Lawful Neutral, but I'm personally an NPC, so I offer hints regardless of which rebels rule the realm.

Do you have a character class? Your answer won't affect my decision to not care if you triumph or perish, but it will strictly dictate which items I suggest you find and where you might try looking for them. You can trigger my sidequests at any time during the game, or not at all.

Don't exactly know where you find me at certain hours, but if you've already gotten the key to the Tower of Admin, you can probably just tag me and follow the marker on your minimap. But as I warned that starship bird in the beginning, don't use your tree powers to come tapping at my chamber window during my two-minute autosave function. You'll be sorry! So good luck, on either side of the equation! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, November 16, 2019 (UTC)

Strong neutral: Switzerland (when was the last time they were invaded?); weak neutral: Belgium (same argument really). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:EvergreenFir congrats on the successful RfA. Good luck answering our Hulk. DBigXrayᗙ 07:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

It's up to her. Even if she won't decide, she still has made a choice. Anyway, I may or may not have enlisted her help in a War Against the Dead.

I know it's a lot to ask, Your Grace, and you have your own original storyline to complete, but if you would do us all a solid by being a fair, wise and just mediator when the levee breaks, I will pledge my pensword to thee and bend the knee unflichingly, for this night and all the wars to come. Professionally and platonically, of course.

If you're interested in leveling up on power and responsibilty, you can find the ORB OF NEUTRALITY by searching ANI. Consider it a Tutorial Quest and skip it if you already know what must be done. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, November 17, 2019 (UTC)

Objectively stronger

The comment in question: [10]

I was paraphrasing your argument ("in other words"). I didn't say your position was objectively stronger, I said you said it was. I thought that was sufficiently clear, but sorry for the confusion. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

That's alright, it can be taken both ways, English is a cruel mistress and sometimes paraphrasing betrays the revisionist's bias (you suggest you think I said that in other words). How long did you love your cat and how long has it been, if you don't mind me asking?

And how do you feel if we frame War Games at the Omni as a boring debate night out instead? New Year's Day was an awful idea on second thought, but soon, Tony. My fourteen years are up in February. Something like a real debate, though, not presidential. Instead of five-minute increments, we go a day before letting our next combatants enter (at the same time, to not go full carny). Once all eight are in, anybody stuck with no logical way out must be saved by a teammate or submit forever. I think it could work this time. Do you have a living cat? If so, think of the time you could cherish by taking the fall in this blowoff match.

If I were on the jobbing side, I'd do it. Everyone remembers the finish, only nerds recall the middle. A real leader in anti-naming history would only run away from the challenge for a couple of weeks to build outside interest, but if you still are that captain, you'll show up when the bell rings and leave richer than you currently think possible. Trust me, Schiavontay, you'll be ready to rumble. When I advised you to "kick it" earlier, I meant you could learn a musical instrument and collaborate with like-minded protestors to stream digital protest content. Bob Dylan is an old man's pseudonym, too, haven't you ever wanted to potentially jam with Bob Dylan? He's too subjectively weak for my rock and/or roll dreams, but that's why I thought he'd sweeten the pot for you, my dear opposite friend. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, November 18, 2019 (UTC)

I had Katze from the time she was 14 weeks old until we let her go at 17+1⁄2 years old, in July, with kidney failure. I don't know when the feeling became love, but it grew with time as I came to realize that our strong bond and relationship were changing me in very positive ways. I've actually regressed a little since July. We have committed to a kitten of the same breed, which I have already named Whimsey Belle, that will be 14 weeks old and ready to bring home in January. Whether Whimsey will be as special as Katze was remains to be seen. Thanks for asking. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

D'awww, "Whimsey Belle"! May you bring each other a long and a happy existence. I've loved and lost a lot of furballs over the years, but I've only recently had one reach human adulthood (19 here). It's going to be weird not having [longhaired grey male] around when he's still at home at 30 and I'm off running around that big farm in the sky.

At least I'll have other dogs to play with, right? Lots of squirrels to chase and 72 tender bunnies to hug and squeeze and call "George". You ever let a lepine into your heart or stomach? Tell me about the rabbits, Tony...no, wait, whole other character. Dammit, I'm just staying in Hell when my organs fail, aren't I?

Anyway, keep healthy and I look forward to meeting you and yours in the ring this holiday season. Maybe we can suspend Whiskey Whimsey Belle in a shark cage overhead to prevent her from hooking her father's enemies' heartstrings or distracting the special guest enforcer (it sounds weird, but it historically favours the unpopular rulebreaking team). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, November 18, 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we can suspend Whiskey Belle - Have another, on me. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You might need a drink after the dose of game-altering reality I just took "kicks in" on your end of the Spectrum. You, Mr. Privacy is Wonderful Paul Scorndorff, just named a dearly departed and recently deceased non-notable family member against her Taskmaster's known arguable privacy concerns and you're absolutely fine! Welcome home to the sanitarium and arise...Mr. Mandruss. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, November 18, 2019 (UTC)

On second thought I'm cutting you off. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It's too late to think twice, cat's out of the shark bottle. There ain't no coming back from 14 weeks. If you continue to resist joining us, I will be forced to return under a mask after loser-leaving-town in February, and it would be a shame if a certain cute youngster had her identity "misappropriated" for a short summer feud or two, Midnight Rider-style, by a drunken online pervert. I'd much rather just show up in my usual gimmick in a greener encyclopedic territory. But I did try to warn you to not name the living. Of course that is risky. Let's do this the easy way, nobody needs to turn into a pointy giant pussy, or keep on fighting uphill when he could be scritching tail. Sleep on it, the surrender door will still be on the table when you wake up. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:26, November 18, 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I'd turn into the giant pussy in the worst-case scenario, you'd be the one letting Sisyphean work come between you and purrfectly healthy purrsuits (these puns hurt me more they hurt you, I promise). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, November 18, 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to discus the rule on whether to include the victims names

Dear InedibleHulk,

I hereby invite you to discuss a possible new rule on whether or not the name of victims should be included on various articles (i.e. Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Santa Fe High School shooting.

The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Victims'_names_proposal_workshop

TheHoax (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. Already, look what it's become. Now picture me going insane thinking of new ways to repeat myself while getting edit conflicted with no copy/paste recourse, getting hatted for talking about the human problems, getting extra drunk and high to forget how long we've all been treading water. Every single time I've tried to help the clearly right side, it's been a stalemate because clear bullshit arguments about privacy, 99% of readers not wanting to know and the growing number of prior draws are given equal weight. If Wikipedia wants to censor things governments, corporations, journalists, Twitter users, community activists, police, other encyclopedias and most of its own editors consider harmless and normal, fuck this system with all due respect! If I'm pissing my life away online from here out, it's going to be watching station identification compilations on YouTube (at least that kind of monotony tells you how much longer you have). That, and the unfilthy sort of lesbian pornography. Maybe just a few more classic wrestling matches and commercials (I can quit anytime I want, no problem, other addicts have the problem, shut up and good luck). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, November 18, 2019 (UTC)

We hear you. You've reached your limit of tolerance for a badly and irreparably broken system, the entirely predictable result of 18 years of self-selected self-governance. But, whether it ends up being a wikibreak, a temporary retirement, or a permanent retirement, please don't clutter discussions with barely-related coded ramblings on your way out. Rant to your heart's content on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I said my piece in four lines and signed it once. You signed your 33-line rant nine times. If you can't parse figurative language, just say so, but don't be the pot that calls the kettle black (act hypocritically) by playing Melanie's once-valid "wall of text" card. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, November 19, 2019 (UTC)

WTF?? My comments were on topic. Yours weren't. That's a discussion about how to formulate a proposal, not about your happiness or lack thereof about the whole names issue. Under normal circumstances we could tolerate a little off-topic, but that discussion is already becoming difficult to manage even with just the on-topic comments. As for the number of times I signed (you actually counted??), I explained the very good reason for that in my opening comment. No clue what that has to do with anything. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

My comments were on-topic, too. They just weren't bland or familiar. I can go over each line and prove the pertinence beyond a reasonable doubt, but if you'd assume good faith, I'd rather just assure you I'm not lost or moronic. The artificial lightening isn't a typo, for starters, or related to artificial lighting at all. It means El C declared an intention to make my opinion weigh less, and I told him it wouldn't be necessary, then explained why not. "Fugazi" and "kabuki" are secret carny lingo anyone can Google once and remember forever like any "normal" word. "Aurora" refers to the mass shooting of 70 people at a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises in 2012, and "dark night" is a pun referring to the media circus that pops up like clockwork since, between the time someone shoots people in a shooting and the days we spend arguing about fake distinctions between the shooter, the people and the shooting. Wake up, they're all interdependent. That is true. Counting to nine isn't amazing. That is my opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:07, November 20, 2019 (UTC)

Maybe if you could speak in normal English your meaning would be clearer. Your writing style, while creative and poetic-sounding, doesn't exactly lend itself to clear communication, which is already impeded by the whole online thing. Few people share your vast knowledge of trivia, knowledge that's required to even begin to decipher your writing. You effectively write in an arcane language that happens to use English words. Your implication that I'm deficient because I can't understand your coded communications is simply absurd. The Dark Knight Rises? Seriously? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Seriously! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:49, November 20, 2019 (UTC)

Communication should not require puzzle-solving, as exceedingly few of your colleagues have both the required knowledge and the required time. If you want to do literature, go write a book. You could be the next Robert M. Pirsig. But tick tock. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It was the largest mass shooting in the United States for four years, excuse me for overestimating your cultural awareness, guy who follows mass shootings. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:00, November 20, 2019 (UTC)

That's far from the only piece of your puzzle. By all means, dude, enjoy your delusion that somebody is out there is receiving your messages. Expect to be hatted sometimes when they don't. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Three people were hatted for not understanding what your 33-line epic proposal meant. Enjoy projecting your own flaws onto me! Not even being sarcastic, I'm part sin eater, I can take it. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:26, November 20, 2019 (UTC)

Three people were hatted for not knowing what the hell a proposal formulation discussion is. Or what "idea lab" means – a simple concept explained in the first sentence at the top of the page. Competence is required. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

So when it's something you think reasonably intelligent people should already know, there's something wrong with them when you learn they don't. But if I misjudge my audience, I'm some kind of freak that needs to get with the proposal formulation discussion program or eat a dick. That's pretty biased, some might say. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:37, November 20, 2019 (UTC)

Suit yourself. Continue casting public aspersions against me and we'll have a problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Which aspersions and what sort of problem? Serious question. Also honestly, why would anyone directed to your proposal want to scroll to the top of the page before trying to respond to what they read? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:47, November 20, 2019 (UTC)

Which aspersions - Your comments clearly accuse me of a shortage of ethics/integrity, suggesting that I'm deliberately steering the discussion in a way that benefits the omission position. Either that, or that I'm utterly incapable of avoiding an unconscious effect with that result. And yet you have yet to show a single piece of actual evidence, instead arguing in unsubstantiated hypotheticals. That's AGF failure by its definition. I have no more conflict of interest than anybody else who has been involved in the names issue for years, and I daresay I have more ethics than many of them on both sides. what sort of problem? - The sort involving ANI, obviously. I wasn't suggesting fisticuffs or a duel. why would anyone directed to your proposal want to scroll to the top of the page before trying to respond to what they read? - I haven't a clue what that means. If there is a proposal, it won't be on that page, and it won't be "my" proposal in any sense. It will be a collaborative group effort, which is the purpose of that discussion, and it will be submitted over El C's signature, as stated at the Saugus article. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal, proposal formulation, proposal formulation discussion. By any name, your thirty-three lines start this section, no sentence explaining a simple concept of the PFD or how "idea labs" work. I've been around here since early '06, but hadn't even heard of there. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:53, November 20, 2019 (UTC)

Between the first sentence at the top of the page, and the word "workshop" in the heading, I felt intelligent people should have been able to figure it out. And I have no way of knowing what other editors know. But if you think further explanation at the beginning would help, nothing is stopping you from adding it. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Go to the link at the top of this section (or Spadaro's or any of the Summoned Familiars'). Click it. Where'd you go, the top of the page? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:12, November 20, 2019 (UTC)

You're suggesting that reading the intro (or at least the first sentence) of a public-venue page upon your first exposure to it, so as to understand its purpose and function, is too much to expect of editors with years of experience? On that we will have to disagree. That stuff is up there for a reason, and a good reason; it's not just noise. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, if canvassed people follow the link, they do not see the top of the page. They see your intro. Nowhere in that first exposure do we see anything explaining what this is. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:41, November 20, 2019 (UTC)

I fully understand, please believe me. And were I in that position I would note that it's a public-venue page I'm unfamiliar with, and the first thing I would do is, yes, scroll to the top of the fucking page and read a little about it. Then I would return to whence I came from. Easy peasy. And, what I said immediately below; JUSTFIXIT. I'm wondering if you just to like to argue for the mental exercise. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, as I said you are free to add helpful explanation at the start of the discussion. If you perceive a problem, WP:JUSTFIXIT rather than criticizing somebody for creating it, turning the molehill into a mountain. I can't guess what explanation you would consider adequate. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

And don't blame Wikipedia's 18 years for this shit. Aurora's victim list wasn't compromised seven years ago, nor were other classic shooting articles. The Unnamer Movement is barely three. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, November 19, 2019 (UTC)

I initially misread your rant above as something more general about Wikipedia editing. My carelessness. I probably should have removed that and started over. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

After reading more of the above, I'm afraid you're simply wrong. Your viewpoint on these content matters is NOT the only valid one, period. It's a fucking viewpoint. You are free to fork a new site and populate it with editors who see things the way you do (I recommend Bus stop as co-founder). Your site's constitution should begin with the precept: There is one and only one correct answer to every content question. Shades of gray do not exist here at B&Wpedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't grant my nominal freedom to establish a new colony of wrong people while telling me how to draft my constitution, American. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, November 19, 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Just as soon as you stop loudly displaying your black-and-white, One Correct Answer thinking on content. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, I believe in one reality. Call it black, white, right or wrong, but get outta here with your hyphenation and dualism. All shades of grey are the same basic thing and all things are based and arranged in three, not two. (Eight is basic, too, but understanding how that's possible is prohibitively difficult.) InedibleHulk (talk) 08:19, November 20, 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

What did I just tell you, system? Stop wasting the people's time with divisive political mind games. 'Tis the season for reindeer power, not cyberspam. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:22, November 19, 2019 (UTC)

Teach me, Lord Mandruss, to correctly count colons consistently, I BEG YOU!

1. Copy my colons.
2. Paste to your comment.
3. Add one colon. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Can't copy. Can't paste. But addition might work, and so I shall never forget thy benevolence, wisdom and cat's good name! InedibleHulk (talk) 13:21, November 20, 2019 (UTC)

Request for survey

Hi! I'm Superchilum, admin on Italian Wikipedia.

I'm collaborating with two social researchers, Oscar Ricci from the University of Milano-Bicocca and Sergio Splendore from Università Statale of Milan. We are interested in exploring what Wikipedians think about the approach of Wikipedia to breaking news.

So, we have prepared a survey with a bunch of open questions. We will be very grateful if you would accept to answer those questions for us and let us know your point of view. Of course it will be strictly anonymous and the answers will be used only for research purposes. Moreover, you don't have to write in English, but you can use your native language.

If you want to help us (thank you!) I will send you the questions, and we would appreciate very much receiving the answers by next December 2nd; otherwise, let me know so I can ask more people.

Thank you very much for your attention, and have a nice day.

--Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 21:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Not interested, ask more people. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, November 22, 2019 (UTC)

Pinging

So are you nominating Ellie Soutter for deletion?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm listening to "Yesterday Don't Mean Shit" on Spotify. Meaning I'm using a Chinese TV box. With a Japanese game controller. So typing is hard, switching tabs is risky and pasting is a mystery. I have a Taiwanese laptop, but don't want to bother it for something this small.

Can IPs do it? If so, do it! If not, ask the last guy and get back to me when we're removing this terrible idea for an inspirational sports bio. I can still vote on this crazy futuristic device (Oppose Chinese Democracy, Support Rex Brown for United States Secretary of Defense). Still think we should wait nine months, though, for poignancy. If I'm dead by then, remember me as someone who wanted someone who wanted to leave a world that didn't care about her bronze medal and forest voices to be forgotten the way she lived, in obscurity, per her one newsworthy performance.

I'd compare her to Nathan Gale, but that's perhaps unfairly influenced by the current bug in my ear and future Secretary of Health and Human Services, Philip H. Anselmo (Revolution is his name, don't you know?) InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, November 24, 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump Talk

Your recent edit summary must be one of the most misleading ever!--Jack Upland (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Your adjective says No, but your exclamation point says...well, you know! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:46, December 16, 2019 (UTC)

Whakaari/White Island article title RM notice

You recently participated in a discussion on the title of the Whakaari/White Island article. I have made a formal WP:RM request at Talk:Whakaari/White Island if you care to weigh in. —  AjaxSmack  17:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I just might, thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, December 17, 2019 (UTC)

Mer

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello InedibleHulk, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I have enough of that good stuff already, so I'll regift your wish to the first wartorn sad loser family I read about in the news. But thanks for thinking of me. May you also get/stay warm/bright on the silent/holy night! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, December 23, 2019 (UTC)