User talk:InedibleHulk/Archive 5

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, 4 July 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, 1 July 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, 1 July 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, 2 July 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, 2 July 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, 2 July 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, 9 July 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, 16 July 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, 10 August 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, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries, it worked. And apologies for presuming you're still an admin. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, 10 August 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, 15 August 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, 21 August 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, 23 August 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, 24 August 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, 25 August 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, 28 August 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, 28 August 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.

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, 3 September 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, 28 October 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, 7 September 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.

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, 28 October 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, 28 October 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, 28 October 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, 29 October 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, 2 November 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, 21 December 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, 2 November 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, 6 November 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, 11 November 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, 11 November 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, 11 November 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, 11 November 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, 12 November 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, 14 November 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, 19 November 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, 19 November 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, 19 November 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, 19 November 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, 24 June 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, 24 June 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, 2 December 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, 6 December 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, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks. You knew him? starship.paint ~ KO 08:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Only from the news. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:59, 2 April 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, 2 April 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, 31 March 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, 31 March 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, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Have you been taking your medication? EEng 06:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

In a manner of speaking. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:19, 31 March 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, 31 March 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, 31 March 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, 23 April 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, 14 May 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, 14 May 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, 14 May 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, 15 May 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, 19 May 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, 21 May 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, 22 May 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, 23 May 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, 7 June 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, 7 June 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, 7 June 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, 14 June 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, 14 June 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, 24 June 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, 25 June 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, 27 June 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, 30 June 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, 30 June 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, 5 August 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, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

And jump around. Jump around! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 5 August 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, 10 August 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, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Says here you get another season. But so did American Horror Story fans. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, 10 August 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, 10 August 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, 10 August 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, 10 August 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, 10 August 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, 14 August 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, 14 August 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, 15 August 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, 26 August 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, 2 September 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, 3 September 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, 3 September 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, 3 September 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, 3 September 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, 4 September 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, 3 September 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, 4 September 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, 4 September 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, 12 September 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, 13 September 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, 30 September 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, 30 September 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, 30 September 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, 30 September 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 (UTC) 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, 2 October 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, 2 October 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 an 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, 8 October 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, 10 October 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, 11 October 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, 11 October 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, 11 October 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, 11 October 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, 11 October 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, 11 October 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, 11 October 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, 20 October 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, 16 October 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, 17 October 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, 17 October 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, 17 October 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, 17 October 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, 17 October 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, 30 September 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, 30 September 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, 5 November 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, 5 November 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, 6 November 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, 28 December 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 told you forty nights ago, 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, 28 December 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, 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. Of course I'd miss you. For starters, we enjoy considerable overlap in our senses of humor and I have thoroughly enjoyed our banter over the years. And I would always "miss" a competent editor, as they are too rare. You are objectively a competent editor. Actually our only significant difference is the victims' name issue, and I'm not so corrupt as to use something like this to try to take out one opponent in an ongoing content dispute. I'm sorry you feel that I am, but I damn well know better. If the names issue has destroyed a good working relationship, I'm sorry about that too, but that would not be my choice. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

D'awww, I can't stay mad at you. You aren't corrupt, and neither is Whimsey Belle. Whiskey Belle, on the other hand, remains a twisted gimmick in my back pocket, which I have no scruples about releasing unto the world if it should come to that. I'm winking and suggestively tapping the general area a back pocket would go, in case you couldn't tell. Don't take anything the wrong way, though, we're only fighting because someone insisted on sharing our feeling instead of our objectively stronger competence. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:26, 28 December 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 sometimes 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, rather than rest assured? It won't take a decade, I promise. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It came to me in a dream, rather predictably. The next level of dispute resolution is locked behind a door. We'll need six keys, some of which can only be found by riding or wearing adorable dangerous giant beasts. They'll only help us if we drug them with three pieces of candy first, though, and we can't all pitch in because it's a one-player game. Mr. Mandruss can start, if he wants. I've tried many times, and (without cheating) always die on the toy train stage.

But as for our relatively mild and tame beef, I think I'd like to finish up here at Wikipedia as myself. This includes the signature items I acquired in the latter stages (2013, was it?). Call me a crazy screen junkie, but I honestly feel the ability to quickly recall the past without struggling to open a submenu will be essential in defeating the Nightmare King.

Don't worry, that doesn't refer to Donald Trump. I allude to that joker as a personification of Chaos, both the pit/ladder in Game of Thrones and the antilight at the end of the first Final Fantasy. My work there is done, and I trust Starship.paint, MelanieN and SPECIFICO to lead you two through the aftermath of that dark chapter like a rightful three-headed boss. Unless you're headed to the topics that truly made America great in the '50s (wild animals, pro wrestling and recent deaths), I doubt I'll perturb you with my presence again. Nice to meet you, though! Good luck with Stan, Pete and the IPs. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Would you change your signature for a bird you barely know? If so, I do make that request, despite not being invested in this amusing dispute at all. Persistent Corvid (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I would do anything for crows. I'd run straight out to hell and back! Yes, I would do anything for you, but I won't do that. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Well they can't say I didn't try...whomever they may be. Happy shiny new 2020.Persistent Corvid (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Just between you and me, I was rocked a lot harder than I let on. If "they" had just swooped down in the nick of time and landed even a glancing blow to the skin of my teeth, I'd have stopped flashing red and started flying through the air in slow motion, my screams echoing thrice as I somehow shatter an ornate golden statue that flickers and fades away over my dead body. But this isn't 1992 in Japanese arcades, it's 2020 in Floridan browser games, and you can bet your sweet bippy (assuming corvids even have bippies) my lifebar is shiny and new. I feel like I could argue uphill against anything again.

Is this a new decade just because it starts in a two and Viacom says so? Should Balrog be remembered as M. Bison simply because Capcom intended he resemble Mike Tyson? If Sir Paul McCartney were revealed as the ghostwriter behind System of a Down's cult gem "Forest", April Wine's lukewarm standard "Just Between You and Me" and Nine Days' steaming turd "Absolutely", would those retroactively count as Michael Jackson's contributions to the sonic universe, or just non-canonically?

I say no, no and they don't want you to know, respectively. Decades start like centuries, at one, and calling a black guy a bison is wrong, even by racist stereotype standards of appropriateness. The only one who can even hope to convince me otherwise on these three issues is Mitch, plain and simple! But even an "odd duck" could convince me to lose a pound or two of Wikilink, if one should happen to be vain and voyeuristic enough to think this callback is about "them". Let's just say it wouldn't be the first time "he or she" tried to change the future, at least as we know it. And yes, that duck walks as the crow flies, but that's just a coincidence; you are not the straw that breaks this camel's back. But seriously, you and WMSR came damn close last year to carrying Mandruss over the finish line with you, and you both deserve credit for doing it rationally and kindly. Cheers to another round! InedibleHulk (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

There are scripts you can install to make dates appear in your preferred format. I don't understand why you're putting up a fight about this. There is a reason these rules exist, and the troubles people (and scripts and bots) are having with you are evidence that the reasoning is well-founded. Your justification for your signature is all over the place, and the answer to all of them is that it doesn't matter because you are breaking the rules.

Your comment about "codemonkeys" was also quite patronizing. People volunteer to do things all the time, like picking up trash in a local park. In this example, you are a guy that keeps dumping trash there because it's convenient for you and you believe the volunteers like to pick it up. Everyone here is doing their part to build an encyclopedia, and few, if any, are here to do extra work to accommodate your personal whims. WMSR (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I worked with Sroc in July 2013 to find scripting solutions, but they didn't work, mostly for unknown reasons. If technology here has advanced since, I could try again, but don't know where to start. Do you?

Your trash analogy doesn't work, either. All I did was suggest giving volunteers a new task, and only as a Plan B after suggesting we simply ignore or tolerate this very small annoyance locally, through simple user privileges like declining to converse. If the last 77 months of silence are any indication, this method did the trick for Sroc, and it can go back to working for you, too, like it did right up until we briefly crossed paths.

The only thing even slightly resembling a monkey picking up my litter while I sit on a high horse and demand he smile and dance to my mad whims was that time Mandruss manually archived a Trump Talk thread. In the end, it led to us both realizing the system was the problem, and his "forced" labour earned him enough respect that I started acknowledging him by his chosen name, instead of continuing to own him as a virtual pet called Tony. And that situation only got so weird due to our preexisting weirdness, unlikely to reoffend.

If any volunteer computer programmers were hindered by my codemonkeying or patronized by that term, I haven't heard from them. Just people who are slightly bothered by my petty criminality between very long spells of not minding it, so I'm sticking with my "smoking weed in public" analogy. Offline, I'm the sort of dick who tells litterbugs they dropped something. I used to return their garbage to them, when feasible, but I'm too old to get my ass kicked anymore. I'll still verbally defend myself from insinuations that I'm anything like them, though! Unless I get scared or tired, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Who is the "we" that is "tolerat[ing] this very small annoyance"? It certainly isn't you. This is such a weird hill you've chosen to die on. WMSR (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It certainly is me. Have I complained once about needing to explain this again? I could ignore your questions and complaints, just as easily as we can ignore each other's annoying timestamps, but that'd be rude. So I try to deal with it by suggesting we (you and I) move on. You wouldn't need to figure out when I comment and I wouldn't need to keep telling you it's no big loss if we both just got back to what we were doing here before bumping into each other. Remember how much less annoyed we were? A very small amount of relief can still be ours. But if you're somehow hung up on this to the point where you can't enjoy Wikipedia knowing I'm still out there, somewhere, breaking a vaguely-worded rule, by all means, see if such a law is practically enforceable. But that'll just mean seeing my annoying signature while that optional process drags on and wastes even more people's time. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, you already chose. I guess "really prefer not" means something else where you're from. See you in "court"! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2020 (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, 16 October 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, 6 November 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, 13 November 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, 15 November 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, 16 November 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, 17 November 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, 18 November 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, 18 November 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, 18 November 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, 18 November 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, 18 November 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, 18 November 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, 19 November 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, 20 November 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, 20 November 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, 20 November 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, 20 November 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, 20 November 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, 20 November 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, 20 November 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, 20 November 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, 20 November 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, 19 November 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, 19 November 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, 20 November 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, 19 November 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, 20 November 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, 22 November 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, 24 November 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, 16 December 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, 17 December 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, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. WMSR (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't take my silence there as consensus or ignorance. I just can't tolerate edit conflicts on this TV box like you fancy city lawyers can. Must be nice to never have to work your thumbs raw on a D-pad, then have to start over when some speed demon cuts you off with his QWERTY remark. Appropriately enough, the guy I figured would be my fixer someday is doing the talking already. Seriously, no collusion, just convergence. I like it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, if you insist we continue to go around together, you should probably know I prefer masculine pronouns to plural. I may not have been born a man, but I used to be A little boy. Never had the joy of wondering which twin I was, had to contain good and evil myself, but not making any excuses. Just saying. Who has multiple thumbs and one lonely penis? This old dog! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

You can set your gender in preferences. I used neutral pronouns because you do not currently have a gender selected. WMSR (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed that, thanks. All clear now. At least, I checked the box; that didn't work for date formats, but I'm feeling optimistic! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, Since you asked this question at ANI, The answer is yes, your gender flag is working now. It shows Male. regards.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for peeking. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I would have said "my pleasure" but you have made it appear totally inappropriate now. DBigXrayᗙ 20:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

As Lepricavark suggested. Hope this cookie may convince you to change your sign and put an end to the thread at ANI. DBigXrayᗙ 08:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't start the thread, didn't maintain it, won't end it. Just leave the cookie on the dresser. I have mixed feelings about eating bribes at the moment. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are denying the writing on the wall. You had your say, you heard others. It is time to act. Why do you want to escalate this further and make the admins block you ? I could not say what to do in a better way than Valeree already did. Hope you reconsider your hostile posturing on this. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the least hostile posture I've ever assumed. I'm literally just trying to go on as normal. The complaint at AN/I is what's bringing the noise today. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

I'm truly sorry that it has come to this, but you have flaunted the very unambiguous warning that you were given. Per a community consensus, your signature is in violation of the relevant policy on signatures, and you have been, via a unanimous community consensus, ordered, unambiguously, to resolve this issue. You have been directly notified about this consensus, and you were directly warned that continuing to either edit, or post your signature, in any capacity, before resolving this issue, would be interpreted as a willful rejection of the voluntary resolution that would be required in order to avoid a block to enforce the community's consensus. As such, you have been blocked indefinitely. Note that "indefinite" does not mean "permanent", and that blocks are "preventative", not "punitive". This block is only meant to prevent continuing disruption, as has been specified by the community. Whenever you fix the issue, you may be unblocked. I have notated this in your block log. Please let me know once this issue is resolved and I will be happy to unblock you. Note that this talk page is a tool for you to appeal your block when appropriate. It is not a forum for you to continue the offenses that led to the block. If you continue editing without fixing your sig, even if only here, your talk page access will be revoked. Best regards, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Since this is Wikipedia I'll just point out briefly that by flaunt you probably mean flout. And Swarm, I think you're going way overboard on this. EEng 02:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Gotta love it when people "correct" people incorrectly. EEng meet dictionary.[11] I think Swarm is about right on this, and I also oppose second-guessing admins acting within the discretion afforded them by policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The dictionary says Although the 'treat contemptuously' sense of flaunt undoubtedly arose from confusion with flout, the contexts in which it appears cannot be called substandard ... If you use it, however, you should be aware that many people will consider it a mistake. – Levivich 06:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the record, I love being correctly corrected, because then I know more than I knew before. But I almost as much love when people "correct" people, who are correctly correcting people, incorrectly, because then I get to link corrective discussions such as The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style: flaunt; flout. Coinfusion about these terms is distressingly common. I'll take Oxford over Merriam-Webster any day. EEng 06:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Inedible, had you thought of moving to the Maya calendar? Quite good at predicting the end of the world. Or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

A Mexican Buddhist once told me the sound of one hand clapping could ripple through time and form a greater picture for those things bigger, better and badder than our human identity crises on Earth. But he didn't warn me there'd be bees. May the Lord of Light guide you, Mr. Evans, for the Swarm is dark, but contains few errors.

'ere I depart this Limbo Page, let me just correct one thing, though. I was not clear about editing potentially triggering my expulsion! I don't use my signature for that. But I knew you'd see me whisper to Levivich, so if you want to chalk this up as suicide, I won't argue it.

And don't worry, I'm not going to "haunt" this page. But a goodbye is still legal, right? If not, "good journey". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

And with the continued violations, talk access has been, unsurprisingly, revoked. Consult WP:UTRS if you wish to appeal further. Regards, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know the timing of this, but many hours ago, well before this block became a block, I looked into this volleyball game (hadn't noticed it until then) and by that time InedibleHulk's signature had already been changed. I was going to comment about it, and realized that the issue was already resolved with the signature change. Just wanted to add my eyeswitless testimony about who what where what (again) and when. Even so, as I read this section, it seems the issue has been resolved once again, with the beforementioned change in the signature occurring. If InedibleHulk leaves because of this, that would make absolutely no sense, given the scale of the problem compared to all things considered. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

It's actually quite obvious that you have not looked into this, at all, even to observe the most utterly basic situation at hand. Truly, (Personal attack removed), and it's actually astonishing that you'd deign to defend such situations. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's much more of an insulting statement than any I've seen from Inedible. But that aside, yes, a few hours ago I begin reading the controversy about the signature, saw that InedibleHulk had already changed the infamous sig, and moved on thinking it was over. Then I saw this, and came to comment on what I saw earlier. Thought it may be relevant, but apparently is touching a sore spot, so I may be missing something. My bad? Randy Kryn (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, is it about the "5 January 2020" compared to "January 5, 2020"? That I missed, and yes, IH should get in line with the crowd on that one. I thought this was about the "abused by so and so for such and such a time" tag line. My apologies for obviously missing the obvious. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your comments really make it clear that you're not actually aware of the issue that led to the block at all. I mean, you could simply look at their contribs and find it, I'm not sure why you're making me explain it to you. IH was involved in an ANI complaint about their sig, which led to a strong consensus that their signature was in violation of the sig policy, and that they were mandated to fix it, which they refused to do. They were only blocked after explaining, begging and pleading had been completely exhausted. This is not a rushed, draconian block, it's an exceedingly minor sanction that they were repeatedly warned would happen if they did not fix a simple and straightforward problem, and they, for reasons unknown, didn't. It will be lifted at whichever point it they restore the default timestamp, not a high bar to meet. No, as of IH's most recent edit, even after the block, their sig was not changed to fix the problem, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Apart from that, I'm uncomfortable discussing a block on a talk page where the user has access revoked, so please take any further issues to my talk page. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, you appear to be thinking of User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and his ″treated like dirt by administrators since 2006″ tag line. P-K3 (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

But at least Hullaballoo didn't have the bare-faced effrontery to link to 2006! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes P-K3, good catch, and thanks for a good summary Swarm. But I'm glad I did make that mistake so that I could enter this conversation and urge InedibleHulk to please drop the horse on its sticky hoofs or whatever, code the signature to fit in with the rest of us inedibles, and come back and play among the fields of the lord. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear, dear green and inedible colleague of many years and edits. If you wished to quit this place anyway, and just decided to go out with a whatever, then I have nothing to add. But if you actually preferred to stay and keep contributing in your hulky fashion, but remain too pig-headed to budge over such a flyspeck of an issue, then I'm pissed off and prefer you relented. Either way, I only wish you tranquility and all the best. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Well this is silly. I don't really know why some in the community think a mildly annoying signature is worth blocking a user with 70k edits over 14 years, but whatever. Just change your signature and appease the peanut gallery. Also @Sluzzelin:, as I learned a while ago, it's this type of hulk not this type of hulk. GMG^talk 20:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

If you read the ANI thread (which I recommend is a must read in its entirety for anyone interested) you will find that the community did not call for a block, it was IH who decided that his timestamp was something "worth dying for" and then took the plunge from the proverbial high horse.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

20:05 Hulk says he will stop using the signature after responding to questions in the thread. 23:37 he's indef'd. 23:59 the thread is closed. I was expecting that first the thread would be closed by an uninvolved admin as consensus that the signature should be changed, and then Hulk would change it. It was much more dramatic this way, though; a much better hard turn to Hollywood. – Levivich 22:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to echo Sluzzelin's "flyspeck of an issue" and GMG's "annoying signature ... worth 70k edits over 14 years". This impasse seems quite sad and almost surreal. Four plain tildes are good enough for me (although occasionally there are three or five, or even none). It seems the convenience of robots is regarded more highly than a little leeway for personal expression. I really don't see how a compromise could be brokered. InedibleHulk, I think you are a huge net positive for the project. Face say farewell to nose? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Lev check this edit, which was his goodbye. And it was made before the block. [12]. So it is wrong to imply that he was hurriedly blocked. And the bottom line is that the block log states, it can be lifted any time. And Martinevans123 it was not just that the bots were inconvenienced, humans from other parts of the world too. (if at all they matter, but looks like they don't since everyone keeps talking about the f bots.) Overall, I am disappointed to see IH chose to leave, instead of doing what was expected of him. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems you see no scope for compromise either. As Mick might say, "The fields of Eden are full of trash"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what compromise you could come up here. IMHO, IH has simply locked himself inside a coffin and is refusing to come out. Hope he returns. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Not only did the minister say his bit, but the undertaker then quickly filled in the soil so we couldn't hear what Inedible had to say? Yet another Big Brother Presentation? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Hulk was given more than ample opportunity to speak, and his message was consistent and simple: "I will retire before I submit to this community's consensus for me to use the standard timestamp." Life is all about choices, and he made his as was his right. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, life, Jim. Something like this could only happen here. I'm left wondering when a personal expression of the timestamp became so important and why. I guess conforming to the rules is more important than what has one say. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Well then you simply fail to understand the issue. This was never about conforming to rules. Rules were cited, but they were just icing on the cake of reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. I assumed there were some rather trivial rules about the format of signatures and that Hulk had been indefinitely blocked for breaking them. And that he was then prevented from writing on his own Talk page here for breaking those rules again. I did not know that any cake was involved. So he's been skating on thin icing for the past 7 years, then? With plenty of prior warnings across that time? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Finally read the whole thing, and to me it makes no sense to ban someone who has been using the signature since 2013 and is planning on leaving in February anyway. Best all around solution is to unban, forget about it until March 1, then see if Inedible has left on their own. If he has a change of plan and sticks around then take the issue up again. That seems the fairest way to operate in this situation while at the same time assuming everybody's good faith. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

May I point out a good faith error in the above indef ban. WP:SIGNATURE is a guideline, not a policy (which mistake by itself might be enough to kindly rescind the ban?). So we should use common sense and, as is decreed at the top of every guideline page, "occasional exceptions may apply". Is it common sense to ban a 14-year user who has used the same signature since 2013, especially since an intended February retirement sits there like a bug on a log just waiting to strike up and band, and doesn't this six year uninterrupted usage already label this an "occasional exception"? Assuming good faith all around to celebrate Little Christmas. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I completely agree that this "soft block" needs to be enforced. IH has corrupted the Special:WhatLinksHere page of every single date in the calendar and every year since they have started doing this.[13] This is not a "no one cares" or "no harm" situation. They are actively corrupting useful data every time they sign their name. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, linking the years and dates does screw up the "what links here" coding, and that's the point where the signature disrupts the encyclopedia rather than just present a personal preference. Would changing the signature coding go back and self-correct those links or is the "damage" permanent? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

We would need a bot to go do all the changes like this. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

As a non-coder it seems that that bot should be invented and let loose to fix the existing signatures. Inedible, that linkage does present the main problem for anyone defending you, and seems the major reason to change the sig. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

After all this, have you missed the fact that Hulk's timestamp adversely impacts archive bots and completely defeats multiple user customization scripts? Are you aware that the timestamp is not part of the signature definition unless one plays technical tricks to make it so? Are you really proposing that coders should spend one second of their time to accommodate one obstinate user's need for a specific form of self-expression? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

If these past seven years of signatures have caused so much disruption across Wikipedia, don't they need to be cleaned up somehow? Or are you suggesting that Inedible should be required to go back and correct them all? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

If all we're talking about is cleaning up past damage, fine. Hulk himself has previously suggested that the software should be modified to accommodate him, so I thought that was part of what Kryn was talking about just above. But I fail to see what that has to do with this block. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

A possible bot clean up, which is what this whole thing seems about (blocked so no more link damage occurs), is something I hadn't considered, not being bot-savvy. If the Hulk-bot is possible, that's a direction to go, and of course the no-more-damage prohibition as a reinstatement requirement is fair. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: That's a bit of a misleading narrative. He did say that he would change his sig to avoid a block, and at that point he had a clean slate. I wouldn't have even held it against him if he posted without signing, or if he signed his comments without dating them. However he signed that message with the offending timestamp, then continued posting the offending timestamp an additional eight times prior to being blocked, including in a "goodbye" message on his user page which gave the impression that he had resigned himself to the block and would not be resolving the issue in good faith. The block did not betray his promise, his own actions did, and that's why he was blocked. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Note for UTRS

This block is intended to be easily-overturned upon the resolution of a minor issue with the user's sig timestamp. I understand they can't demonstrate this via the UTRS, and I'm not looking to make them jump through any additional hoops to get unblocked. If they simply affirm that they have resolved the issue, I think we can just take them at their word and unblock, rather than kicking it to the talk page for further screening. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect Block

The Inedible Hulk has been incorrectly blocked for a refusal to change a pretty minimalistic signature. I see no blinking, no strange colors, no eye burning color combinations, nor polemics, just his name and a date. A signature gets no simpler than that. Add to that, Inedible Hulked has been with us since Feb 3 2006. At that time, the rules (guidelines) about signatures were as follows on this link. Since he was here prior to the rules chains, I would say that he should be grandfathered in. It would be different if he had a polemic on his signature like this gentleman who has a polemic in his signature but remains unblocked , but he doesn't.

He's causing no harm to humans with his signature, at worse, it's a minor inconvenience to bots, at best. Unblock, with him grandfather-claused in. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. But apparently, reading the thread above, he was also guilty of cake and icing. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Martin, may I suggest that repeated snarky distortions, complete with cute wikilinking to unrelated information, are not helpful here? That said, I'm done trying to inform uninformed editors and call out distortions by informed ones. Enjoy. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss, may I suggest this block was a poor one? Kindly explain your cake and icing. Ah, but sorry, you said you're done? Not sure what there is to enjoy exactly. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wekeepwhatwekill and Martinevans123: I am also disappointed that this was the result of the dispute, but the fact is that WP has policies, and Hulk's signature was in violation of that policy. While this may not have been policy before, it is policy now. His posts before that policy came into place would certainly be "grandfathered in", as would his posts before the issue was brought to his attention. Regardless, there was clear consensus on ANI that he needed to change his signature because it contained an invalid timestamp; even if humans could read it, bots could not. There were also issues with backlinking. This would have been very simple for him to fix. Unfortunately, he outright refused to do so. As a community, en-wiki relies upon rules and community consensus, and he intentionally violated both. He is not banned from the site; he is welcome back at any time provided that he modifies his signature. That's literally all he needs to do. It's really not a big ask. --WMSR (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

WMSR no, that's not true, how about Rms125a@hotmail.com who has a username that's in violation of the username policy, but has been grandfathered in and permitted to keep his username Necromonger...We keep what we kill 12:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I can see your viewpoint and it's not unreasonable. Maybe my judgement is clouded by my view of Hulk's worth as a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia and as colleague over many years, coupled with the fact that the "disruption" caused by the signature was wholly invisible to me (as I suspect it was for most others). It might be beneficial if future signature "guidelines" could somehow accommodate such apparently trivial personal preference. As for the current block, I really don't see why anyone should "Enjoy" it. Nor do I see why an AN/I close needs to contain a personal attack. But if Hulk is planning to leave anyway, so be it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Look, I get it. This is a trivial, minor issue to have an established editor indefinitely blocked over. However, he's not indefinitely blocked "in error", or lightly. On the contrary, I just don't see what the alternative is at this point. It's just gotten to the point where there are no other options. It's not a big ask, in fact, what's required of him is so exceptionally minor that it's almost comical that it's gotten to this point. People asked him to fix his sig, he refused. So someone went to AN/I, secured overwhelming feedback from the community that his signature was noncompliant with policy and that he was required to use a standard timestamp. He ignored everyone and refused. He was reminded that a system of consensus governs the project, and asked to respect the consensus even if he disagreed. He refused. He was warned that the consensus would have to be enforced via a block if he did not fix his sig. He still refused. He was blocked, and told that he would be unblocked without any issue whatsoever, and all he had to do was fix the sig. He still refused. So that's why we're here. It's not so much the minor issue that led to the block as it is his refusal to fix it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• And now he can't even participate here. Oh well. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

He can participate here and he is welcome to. He simply cannot ignore existing policies and community consensuses, same with anyone else. He's well aware of this, and forced this situation anyway, in spite of being given every opportunity to avoid it. I don't know why he would do that, it's tragic and upsetting and undesired by everyone, including myself. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Now what?

I got pinged about this conversation by Martin. If I'm right, a Cliff's Notes version of what's happened is:

• InedibleHulk had a signature that broke archiving bots
• Nobody really has the time or effort to go and fix the archiving bots to cater for one user
• Hence InedibleHulk was asked to change the signature so it didn't bork thread archiving
• InedibleHulk thought the request was a trivial waste of time, and picking this particular hill to die on, gets dragged off to ANI and then blocked on the condition that as soon as he changes his signature, there'll be an unblock

Have I missed anything important, or that a basic summary of where we are? Okay, in that case I would recommend the following:

• Can we turn the InedibleHulk's talk page back on? He's not going to be able to break archiving bots if the only place he can write to is his talk page, and he needs to post here so we can tell he's changed the signature (and can hence unblock)
• InedibleHulk, man up and change your signature. I can't see Amnesty International getting involved in this
• Everyone else, look at the picture of the kitten Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

That is a cute kitten. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• "User:Ritchie333:Have I missed anything important", Yes. That Any user not sharing the same timezone as InedibleHulk would need to assume Hulk's timezone and then add/subtract hours using a friggin calculator, to make some sense of those timestamps while participating in a talk page thread. We take a lot of things (such as smooth timestamp re-formatting according to one's timezone) for granted. It is only when you miss something you understand their importance. Clearly Hulk doesn't have to deal with it, so he can enjoy not giving two hoots about it. According to him it is the users bothering him about the "harmless" time stamps, "THE REAL PROBLEM". The block is not making anyone happy, but it is InedibleHulk's personal choice to not end it.--DBigXrayᗙ 15:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  No, that's not true. Hulk's signature uses UTC, which is the default setting, the one I use, and undoubtedly the one the majority of Wikipedians use. So Hulk is not asking anyone to "assume Hulk's timezone"–it's Wikipedia's default timezone, UTC. You, DBX (among others), have a script installed (aptly named WP:LOCO), that changes the default UTC time into your timezone of choice. That script doesn't work with Hulk's signature. It's not Hulk who is trying to get everyone else to operate from their timezone, it's you who is unhappy that Hulk's signature doesn't automatically convert to your timezone. See the difference? We're blocking Hulk because his signature doesn't comply with an optional gadget and optional auto archive bots. P.S., it would be trivially easy to update the gadget and the archive bots to read Hulk's signature. (A two-step process: strip the brackets out and convert from mdy to dmy.) It would also be trivially-easy to make a gadget that does what Hulk's signature does (change from dmy to mdy and wikilink the date and year). We have a foundation with $100 million per year that's supposed to be maintaining the software. Instead of using our nearly-unlimited amounts of money to, you know, actually have some reasonable web-based communication platform (like phpbb, which is free and already far superior to what we have now), we continue to tolerate communicating with each other by means of editing the same HTML file, a method that is like 30 years obsolete. And, when a 13-year, 70k editor doesn't conform exactly and messes up scripts or bots, we block them. Because the most important thing is that people's scripts and bots don't get messed up. I've said it before and I'll say it again: this place routinely puts pages over people, scripts over people, bots over people. We have $100 million per year with which to create technology that fits people, but instead, we have volunteers bully people into fitting the technology. And some wonder why more people don't volunteer here. The stone-age tools need to go, and everyone needs to stop pretending like the stone-age tools are normal and the problem is the people who aren't using them correctly. The year is now 2020. – Levivich 15:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Lev, thanks for pointing. Indeed, in my preference I have enabled the option that says "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time " for obvious reasons.

We are here to build an encyclopedia,

Anything that prevents or hinders in smoothly achieving that goal has to be removed/fixed. These timestamp distractions hinders that goal. The Money WMF has should be used for achieving that goal and not to fund devs to cater to the whims and fantasy of every Tom Dick and Harry. In fact I will be very pissed off if WMF does what you are asking WMF to do and spend even 1 cent. If hulk wants to use that timestamp, he should also come up with a script (write it himself or pay or convince someone to write it for him) that will fix these issues that are a result of his timestamp. Unless this is fixed, he should not be allowed to use that sign. Some folks seem to be prioritizing stupidity and disruption over the stated goals of building a pedia. This is my last comment here and I would request not to be pinged any more on this timesink. Thank you. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, should we modify these plugins for every user who wishes to customize their timestamp? There is a reason these policies exist, and these plugins which you call "optional" are, for many users, integral tools for maintaining and contributing to the encyclopedia. WMSR (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• In my experience, the use of incremental commenting in discussion threads, from top to bottom, and the use of indenting to indicate replies, means that timestamps are largely redundant. Yes they may be useful, to show the exact sequence of commenting, when there is disagreement over who said what first. But for most of the Talk pages I visit you could probably remove all the timestamps and still understand exactly what has been said. Of course, bots are different. Time to break out the chisel, maybe? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Speak for yourself, Martinevans123. What is irrelevant to you might be important for others. Having spent years editing here, we all know how frequently that top to bottom sequence is broken. If you want to hide Timestamps, start an RfC at WP:VP. Posting these thoughts on InedibleHulk's talk page isn't helping in any way. If Hulk would like to build the Pedia he is welcome here after fixing the sign. If timestamps are all that matters for him, then there are probably several sites out there that caters to such needs of personal signatures with fancy timestamps. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yes BXR, I was speaking for myself. Sorry, I thought you had made your last comment. I'm trying to suggest that, in the grand scheme of things, the format of a timestamp might be judged less important than, say, adding quality content, engaging in useful content discussion, combatting vandals, etc. Very sorry if you think "Posting these thoughts ... isn't helping in any way." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• It is hard to not reply when your old friend makes a direct comment in reply to you so here is another. Indeed "in the grand scheme of things... quality content, engaging in useful content discussion, combatting vandals" will be more important than timestamps. I wish our friend InedibleHulk also agreed with it, but it was clearly too much to ask for. :-( --DBigXrayᗙ 17:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• The Money WMF has should be used for achieving that goal and not to fund devs to cater to the whims and fantasy of every Tom Dick and Harry. What do you call a gadget like WP:LOCO, if not catering to the whims and fantasy of every Tom Dick and Harry? Giving us a normal communications platform is not catering to the whims and fantasy of anyone; communication is an integral tool for maintaining and contributing to the encyclopedia. ... should we modify these plugins for every user who wishes to customize their timestamp? No. We should have the WMF spend 1–5% of its budget on giving us a normal communications tool. There's another option in preferences that allows you to change the time and dates shown across the website (like on a history or contribs page) to either dmy or mdy, to UTC or your browser's timezone, or a timezone of your choice. The technology is already there; it's trivially easy to do in today's day and age. Yet, that doesn't work for talk page comments (the LOCO script is needed instead)–why? Because we do the incredibly stupid thing of pasting timestamps in plaintext in the HTML page. Whereas, what is normally done (and what is done, e.g., on history and contribs pages) is that the time information is provided as a timecode (machine-readable), which is then "translated" into a human-readable timestamp. Trivially-easy for the WMF to apply that to talk pages, but we don't even request it. And aside from all that, let's face it: you barely ever look at the timestamp of a comment. It matters what order the comments are in, it matters perhaps what day they were made, but we rarely need to compare the hours and minutes of two comments. Hardly "integral" to the operation of an encyclopedia. Don't tell me that seeing UTC time instead of your local time somehow makes it impossible for you to contribute. Nonsense. This is nothing more than the competing preferences of various editors. Minor inconvenience is not the same thing as disruption. The community can come to consensus that someone should change their signature, fine, but blocking and revoking TPA and describing this as some kind of "offense" or "disruption" is going overboard. And even crazier is that we tolerate such shitty, shitty software even though we have so, so much money. The executive director is jetting around the world right now while her volunteer workforce is fighting over what kind of chisels we're allowed to use. – Levivich 16:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• "you barely ever look at the timestamp of a comment". No, I almost always look at it. It is a big deal for me and there are good reasons why they are added in a comment and I am not going to debate it with you here. The suggestions on "timecode" are excellent, I would suggest you to post them at WP:VP. Even on the ANI thread you (Levivich) kept calling it trivial and stated no one will care for it, asking a straw poll. The straw poll was done and it was conclusively against your opinion. We may have our own opinions and we may disagree, but we should respect well reasoned consensus, as that is how we work here. IH refused to comply with the consensus and an admin blocked him to enforce. I am disappointed to see him blocked but I would have hoped he respected the consensus and done the needful.--DBigXrayᗙ 17:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I suspect a UTC date probably bugs me more than anyone living in the US or Canada (or indeed anywhere that's not close to the Prime Meridian), as in my case it's sometimes the same as the local time (like now), and sometimes isn't. So in the US you know the time is always not local and can mentally adjust to it, whereas for me I keep getting it wrong in the summer. In any case - do I have a consensus to turn InedibleHulk's talk page back on? Aside from Swarm, I don't think anybody else has endorsed going quite that far yet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@DBX: ... you (Levivich) kept calling it trivial and stated no one will care for it ... No, I didn't. I never said anything like that. In fact, I said the opposite: "If there are other, more serious, problems caused [than delaying archive bots], then it might be a problem." The straw poll was done and it was conclusively against your opinion. No, it wasn't. It didn't close "against my opinion"; I've never expressed an opinion directly on whether Hulk should or should not change his signature. I did ask for a straw poll, and one was done, and there was consensus that Hulk should change his signature, and I said above, "The community can come to consensus that someone should change their signature, fine, but blocking and revoking TPA and describing this as some kind of 'offense' or 'disruption' is going overboard." And, as I also said above, "I was expecting that first the thread would be closed by an uninvolved admin as consensus that the signature should be changed, and then Hulk would change it." Consensus→thread closed→signature changed = OK. Demand signature be change upon threat of block→block before thread is closed→revoke TPA over one "goodbye" post = overboard. I support returning talk page access per Ritchie. – 18:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Levivich

Levivich, I wrote the gist of what I understood from the multiple comments you made at ANI. Apologies, if you feel I was too off the mark. Your last few lines has helped in understanding your objections. The flow of events did surprise me as well. I was also expecting a flow as you suggested. But I would not come to a conclusion that TH was not given enough time, pleadings, suggestions, cookies, warnings, threats etc etc to fix the signature before taking stronger actions. If you look into his last few edits, (diff in my comment above) he decided to say good bye, rather than change it. I am not opposed to restoring TPA.

User:Ritchie333, Lev, Martinevans123 and anyone who is not using WP:LOCO gadget in the Wiki preference. FYI the UTC timecodes were greek to me until I started using this gadget. It made a big difference while discussing talk pages. The only way to understand the difference it makes is to experience it by enabling it. So I will highly recommend you to enable it (even if temporarily) if you have not done yet. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight BXR. Let me just make it perfectly clear: I have no problem with the timestamps in signatures as they appear to me. I have no problem with the timestamps in InedibleHulk's signatures as they appear to me. I do realise I'm not a bot. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I'm not sure I count towards consensus; I've been told my opinions are outlandish. And I disagree with the section header here; I don't know why InedibleHulk changed his sig to link the date and year, but it messes up "What links here" like mad, and I'm also sympathetic to those who prefer not to do UTC calculations and instead to display timestamps in their local, esp. if they're near the International Date Line. And I was reading that AN/I for a while. However, in terms of posts to this page, the link damage is done and can't be made significantly worse, and I'd like to see him find a new way to customise his signature and make a successful request for unblock. So, FWIW, add me to those advocating reinstating talk page access. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Per Ritchie333, support returning talk page access. There are 187 of InedibleHulk's signatures on this page. How much disruption or confusion have these caused exactly? I don't see any huge or urgent efforts being made to combat this supposed disruption or confusion. Nor indeed anywhere else across the site. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I really want to support this, but I just keep coming back to the fact that there isn't a big ask here. As it stands right now, the only thing standing in the way of his ability to post here, and also on nearly every other Wikipedia page, is fixing his sig. I'm not convinced that restoring talk page access would serve to solve the problem. Nor am I convinced that Hulk's contributions to this page will sway anyone one way or the other, which doesn't matter anyway since a clear consensus has already been reached on the issue. I feel bad that it came to this, but nobody else is to blame, and it would not take significant effort on his part to fix everything. I therefore weakly oppose restoration of talk page access with the sincere hope that Hulk changes his signature and this whole debacle is washed under the bridge. WMSR (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@WMSR: How can he show willingness to change his sig, or that he's done so, if he can't post anywhere including here? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: UTRS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WMSR (talk • contribs)
Given the content of this discussion, it's rather embarrassing that I forgot to sign! WMSR (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: see #Note for UTRS --DBigXrayᗙ 20:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Support reinstating talk page access for the InedibleHulk. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Especially since he changed his signature on Sunday night, explained it to UTRS Monday morning, was told I needed to fork over my e-mail, tried clarifying my privacy concern today, got called a spammer and am outing my IP address begrudgingly as an actually sorry last resort, not flouting/flaunting/haunting. Open up, I don't want to die, never did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IP hidden) 20:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the InedibleHulk won't be using the controversial signature anymore. Dear Sir Ritchie, will you do the honours? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hip Hip Hooray Music Video Bus stop (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

oooh, "sick rocking" (as the young folk have it, these days)... "get down", etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

based on the comment above, Can an admin restore TPA so that he can request an unblock? --DBigXrayᗙ 21:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

... or even so that he can simply just use his signature, in standard form, which was requested as the only condition for an unblock? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

...has anyone asked Hulk if they intend to change the signature back to its former non-compliant form at a later date? ——SN54129 22:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129, he actually said that in his unlogged comment made 4-5 lines above. Reading the twisted comment, one would guess that it is IH himself. Hence this TPA granting request, so that he can prove his intentions. Thanks User:Vanamonde93--DBigXrayᗙ 22:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I was asking the opposite  :) ——SN54129 22:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I totally missed that. Good Question. The answer is he has not clarified this yet. I hope IH clarifies that he will not revert back to the non-compliant signature in the unblock request and hopefully the unblocking admin will get this in writing. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Vanamonde for handling TP access; hopefully we can get this sorted out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

If someone with the power wouldn't mind covering up my forcibly naked number in the edit history, that'd be decent. The geolocation is vague, but almost close enough to where you can see my house. I don't need anybody showing up to kick my ass next. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

My guess

I'm reminded of Hurricane by Bob Dylan.

"We got you for the motel job and we're talkin' to your friend Bello

Now you don't wanta have to go back to jail, be a nice fellow

You'll be doin' society a favor"

In my opinion InedibleHulk doesn't want to "be a nice fellow". I haven't spoken to InedibleHulk. But Wikipedia has rule creep and Wikipedia has rule-mongering. (I don't know if InedibleHulk would agree.) I would guess this is symbolic and I would guess that InedibleHulk doesn't want to kowtow to rule creep and rule-mongering. Bus stop (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Not quite, but pretty close. And after reading several people guess I chose to be blocked, pretty close sounds refreshingly accurate. Not a big Dylan fan, in general, but he has his moments. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Stand aside, coming through

InedibleHulk, cyber friend, this video released on Christmas only has 123 views. I don't know why. But here it is, as an early viewing parting gift or, better yet, a returning tribute to you and your work here. On Wikipedia you can roam at random across the world's knowledge and...nudge it a little. Please return unapologetic, give them their signature, find a way to make it your own, and continue to roam. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

That Poppy! Don't worry, brother. We'll be safe and sound, when it all burns down. InedibleHulk (talk)

Welcome back, InedibleHulk!

-EEng

Welcome back, InedibleHulk! Bus stop (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your service. You ever want to join the Demolition Moondogs, just ask. Swamp's always open! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk page access restored

I have restored talk page access, per a rough consensus here, and the common-sense argument that (absent technical superpowers I am unaware of) we cannot verify if IH has indeed changed their signature without their having talk page access. I can see that a UTRS appeal occurred, but for some reason cannot see all of the appeal, so apologies if there's a critical detail I missed; somehow, I doubt it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I had to jump through so many hoops with UTRS, I don't have anger left for the people who bound, gagged and buried me. The system works! But I'm floored by the support for digging me up; you guys are the real heroes. I'll expand on that (and the rest) later. For now, check out how wrong my date looks! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

We're a rare breed. You know, people who spend a lot of their time they could be using to make money, and instead they make this thing they give away for free. We should probably all have our heads checked, but at least we're in good company. GMG^talk 00:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Ha ha, you're European now. Have a baguette, some Zagorski Štrukli, and high tea. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Joke's on you, I already own a baguette. But yeah, I know exactly what you mean. Except the part where I was Hullabaloo Wolfowitz for a minute, that was weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Horse or handbag? The Hullabaloo thing was a glitch in the matrix, a pointed twinkle of a distant star interfering with the wave pattern just enough to make for a fun interlude. Swarm tossed me to the sharks on that one but the sharks didn't want me and tossed me back, and now Swarm and I will be best buds, maybe get courtside seats. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Sorry, what are you referring to? I have no idea who you are nor do do I recall ever interacting with you, nor do I know what "Hullabaloo thing" you're alluding to or how I was involved. It's a bit concerning if a user I don't even recognize is harboring a grudge against me, though I suppose it would explain your hostile approach to me here. Inedible, I do not intend to hang out on your page after blocking you, as I'm sure you're still upset, but welcome back and thanks for resolving the issue. I'm sorry it had to come to a block. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

No hard feelings. You did screw me with that Talk Page block part, and hope you learned something about patience. But it's fitting that Sting and Hulk main evented a screwjob roughly around Starrcade season. I think Moondog Randy forgives you for the shark thing (telling him he's ignorant), but just a guess. No clue about Horse v. Handbag. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello. No, no grudge, not my style. I think I have a little grudge towards only one person here and even at that I was the only one to ask him to come back after he left. You have no memory of me, good. I am a dream, the ghost of tiny tim, wandering, seeking candy. Do you have candy? Anyway, of course we're cool, I was playing. IH, as for Horse v. Handbag, you said you have a baguette, just asking which one. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Bread, man. Just bread. I realize this is no laughing matter, but they can't all be meta commentary. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I still have no idea what's going on. I called Randy ignorant for attacking me over a block that he did not seem to understand, and he admitted that this was true. I called him out on not knowing what he was commenting about, and he confirmed that this his comment was in error, thanked me for clarifying, and we all moved on. I have no idea how that constitutes being "thrown to the sharks", and it's unclear who the sharks are in this scenario. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Your walls of text come across like avalanches or earthquakes to me, not sharks, but it's John Tenta in some form. Speaking of confusion, I'm not maliciously trolling you, or selling snake oil. This is how we play, and sometimes play destroys. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Just words tossed about, I was referring to the stuff you said in that moment, stuff which you retracted, not the afterbirth, and I guess the sharks are the unconscious goops and goblins. Please understand that we are just playing here, being glad that Hulk is back and all's well. And I did thank you and meant it, it was my mistake. That aside, I'm glad we hung out, always good to meet active Wikipedians, so I meant the buds stuff too. You throw a good punch (a compliment, not an insult). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Stuff which your fellow Moondog retracted, not this outsider. Levi also retracted an attack on me in Swarm's novella-sized closing statement. If you attacked Swarm, you must have been sneaky, because I completely missed it. The proverbial "veiled jab" or fake news? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Still, no idea what either of either of you are referring to. @Randy Kryn:, please refrain from speaking in esoteric riddle and just make plain what your complaint is. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, henceforth, please speak only in non-esoteric riddle, thank you. – Levivich 02:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Fine. Swarm, would you like to go on a date with my work frenemy, Tony? He likes to be called "Mandruss" and also fears the common tongue. Pretty simple question, whaddya say? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no complaint. I was referring to the part of your comment that was removed, which seemed excessively insulting. And I soon thanked you for a very good summary of what the real situation was. The shark part, which you seem much more sensitive to than I am about whatever it was that you said (a bad experience with sharks as a youngster?) pertained to that exact moment in time. It occurred before you realized that I wasn't coming here to throw a wrench into the proceedings by saying that I had seen Hulk's signature earlier and that the controversial part had been removed. During this period we were living in two different universes, as I thought Hullabaloo's punch line was something Inedible was using, and was writing from that perspective. Hulk and I have communicated on Wikipedia plenty, usually playing while meeting on serious topics, although apparently not enough for me to not confuse his signature with someone else's (just as you were confused above about not having a previous discussion with me). But I hold zero animosity towards you, and I don't remember attacking you in any way. What do you consider an attack? Bottom line, I respect long-term Wikipedians. All of them. We are engaged in something historic, a societal phenomena which we've chosen to be a part of, and that's rare enough that holding a grudge against someone choosing to be doing that seems ridiculous. Auld Artie Zyne. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

"We are engaged in something historic" What isn't historic? Bus stop (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Pre-historic (and even then we can make something of it). But by historic I mean something of a world-changing historical nature, and Wikipeda is building one of those. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Everything that occurred in prehistory is historic. The chain of evidence has not been passed down to us unbroken. But evidence existed for at least a short period of time of everything that transpired before our writing systems came into being. Wikipedia seems "world-changing" but we may be overly impressed by our own accomplishments. Bus stop (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

True on history, much of it lost to the elements and lots of it being turned into myths and collective consciousness touchstones. As for Wikipedia, the impressiveness of it is self-evident for those who lived awhile before it. Of course the internet had to be put up before something like Wikipedia could have emerged, but when it did, and Wales and Sanger put the package together after their separate experiences at Nupedia, they trusted that it would work. Still improvable, but in a large population pool a relatively small and possibly undefinable proportion would become Wikipedians. But yes, I think Wikipedia should be impressed with its own accomplishment. Both objectively and subjectively the thing looks to work on many levels which haven't been explored in the same way, if I may circle back, at any time in history. But Wikipedia is still quite new, and many people are looking ahead to a date certain, 2030, for things to come together to reach a point, as a futuristic knowledge base, where Wikipedia's historical importance will become much clearer. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I use Wikipedia. I seek out the Wikipedia article on many things. I especially like our articles on breaking news events, even though by some considerations these could be in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. If I want to know about 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike or 2020 Iranian attack on U.S. forces in Iraq or Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, I think our articles are a great resource. Bus stop (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Mainpager! Just kidding, it's there because people want it. But if you ever want some adventure, I suggest clicking Random Article three times and thinking deeply about whatever comes up (unless it's a moth, footballer or village stub, of course). But yeah, everything's in history. I've said so myself in edit summaries infinite times (give or take). Get well soon, Iraq! Stay cool, Bus stop. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

We probably bombed a neighboring clan with rocks. Same instincts, different technology. It's historic, in part, because the technology is impressive. Same thing with Wikipedia, except this is "information" technology, so you're supposed to prostrate yourself at its feet. I like information the same as the next dummy. I also like just daydreaming and looking up at the clouds in the sky. We have an article on that: clouds. Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Holy crap, that's what those are? I was taught they were chemtrails that floated north because the American public was onto them. I should've known I was in a fake school by the fake computers! I owe my neighbouring clan's government an apology. "They" didn't break down, it was just vapour lock. Macro-level vapor lock! Thanks for setting the record straight, talking bus stop. And yes, I am a bit drunk (but don't worry, it's not on power, just regular imaginary beer). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've unblocked you, with the obvious understanding that your signature needs to continue to be policy-compliant, and any return to formatting that has the problems that led to this block may be met with another block. Now let's all draw a line under this, and go do more productive things. Welcome back. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, it'll be plain old robotic from here. But I would like to formally swear in Randy and Green as Demolition Moondog Randy and Demolition Moondog Green (respectively, of course). If any among us should see anything wrong with that, speak soon enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Spiked shoulderpads for everybody! – Levivich 02:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

?Who what now? (which are the words I used upon first reading of someone named Poppy on an RM to make her page primary Poppy), and thanks (I'm supposing it's a good thing, sounds wrestlish, I haven't followed wrestling ever since I was a Dick the Bruiser and The Crusher fan). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Check out the Preference > Appearance > Date format. To choose the preferred date style. And then update the Time zones. Also check Preference > Gadget > Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time --DBigXrayᗙ 05:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Check this: Our disagreement is settled after 14 months, and you can either leave thrilled with the win or feeling bittersweet, but you can't stay here. First Tiger Squad, now Bible zombies. Unbelievable! InedibleHulk (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Which disagreement are you talking about ? 14 months huh ? The above was suggestions to help since you didn't like the std timestamp. Feel free to ignore. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Section 25 above, "Your Signature", you won. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider this victory of any sort. If you think it is one, then I would rather dedicate this victory (or whatever), to you since it would not have been possible without you. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Build me a killer statue and paint yourself the victim, then, just do it far from here. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

No, you are not getting a statue for this ... A dedication to you is as all I can do here. Regarding the victim, I believe Wikipedia is a bigger victim, due to the massive amount of backlinks messing up the "What links here". --DBigXrayᗙ 14:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Run tell the village pump, not me. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Good news that the Hulk is unblocked - now, The Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band badly needs a good copyedit.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's hope Hulk will join in over there. "take a trip". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I've seen the other side, Ser Martin. Robots are coming to Iowa, and when they do, every bonzo dog article must be manned, womanned and childproofed against Them. You're the most dolorous wall watcher I know, so rise now as Lord Commander Evans and seize the dog against the dying of the light! My watch is ended, and like the moon in the well down in Fraggle Rock (clap clap), I must "Sail Away" to a different sense of the word "felt-like". I intend to marry Mokey Fraggle to Littlefinger. It's productive later, I swear. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Seize the dog?? How very dare you! Although I admit I did have an uncle who kept mountain goats. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Nice to see you again ~ I was worried ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(adder)'Wow Talk about bad timing I too ~ am sorry to hear about your goat InedibleHulk. ~mitch~ (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mitch! No worries, you're fine. A goat of mine died during this needless clusterfuck, though. So that's new. I haven't clicked your Wikilink yet, but I will. Don't worry, silence is golden. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I should be able to whip up (oo-er) a script that fixes old date sigs some point today. I had a go with vanilla search and replace, but that didn't work so well, it needs a regex. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Vanilla Search? Wasn't she in Bondage Mansion (2000)?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if it's more frustrating chore than welcome challenge. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your goat dying. Wikipedia can loom large in the consciousness and even have connections to unrelated things. I will wake up in the middle of the night and think about the wording I've used prior to clicking "Publish changes". No big deal...just saying. Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, he was elderly and would've most likely died regardless. Not blaming the disruption, no guilt trip intended, just reminded by Martin's uncle. I've had Wikipedia dreams a few times, and like running or fighting dreams, the lack of real time makes them frustrating slogs. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I've got a fix for the signatures, which I've applied to this page - basically do a regular expression search for \[\[(\w+) (\d+)\]\], \[\[(\d+)\]\] \(UTC\) and replace the result with capture groups 2 1 3 in that order followed by "(UTC)". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Shucks. And I thought this was gonna cost WMF about $30m and six man-years of software effort. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a well-known fact of software development that one man, a Pizza and a Raspberry Pi can trump an entire department of IBM Consulting Services. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Well done Ritchie333 for finding a working fix for the replacement. Now we need someone to do a batch run of this script on all the User talk, article talk and all associated archive pages, from InedibleHulk's contribution history. Doesn't appear like InedibleHulk has plans on fixing this since he removed the thread entirely. Ritchie333 are you doing it ? --DBigXrayᗙ 18:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

How many backlinks, total, do you suppose that will remove? "What links here" only list pages that link; not each link. So even if Hulk links to 2020 1,000 times on this page, and we remove them all, that only removes one backlink to 2020. Have you looked at the list of "what links here" for 2020 or 2019? How many unique pages do you think Hulk has posted his signature to over the course of 2019? 100 maybe? 200? There are 5,397 pages that link to 2019. Removing 100 won't really make a difference. Now ask yourself: how many different pages has Hulk posted a signature to per day? 3? 5? There are 3,997 pages that link to January 8, for example. So if we remove all of Hulk's January 8 links, even from 2013–2019, we're removing like maybe two dozen links out of four thousand. Maybe my math or analysis is wrong, but it seems like this work of removing backlinks will not make any meaningful difference. I think we can all move on from this now, yes? – Levivich 18:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Ritchie333, Xtool tells me that there are close to 30,000 edits on different kinds of talk pages since 2013. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  DBX, you're still talking about edits–the correct metric is pages edited. For example, according to xtools, of Hulk's 30k talk page edits, 1,899 of them are to WT:PW (LOL, Hulk, that's even more embarrassing than the number of edits I have to ANI). OK actually there was no reason for me to bring up that particular statistic other than to laugh at Hulk. Moving on, xtools says Hulk has edited 11,000 pages total. I don't know how many of those are mainspace and how many are talk pages, but Hulk has an impressive 56% mainspace edit percentage, so let's assume 44% of the 11,000 pages are not to mainspace – that's 4,840 pages edited (assuming they're all talk pages). Now, there are 365 day pages (like January 8), and 7 year pages (2013–2020), so 372 pages total that the signature might create backlinks to. Divide 4,840 by 372 and you're talking an average of 13 backlinks to each page. That's what we'd be removing, methinks: an average of 13 links out of 4,000–5,000 links. Is this really worth doing? – Levivich 19:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  What about the problem with bot archiving that was mentioned? How is that quantitatively assessed? Is that supposed to be more problematic, and thus more urgent, than the back-linking? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I see that Inedible said above, on 2 October 2019: "In five years' practice, the worst that happens is a Talk Page section I start doesn't get archived if nobody replies". Is that true? How many of those still exist? I think it might be useful to know. You know, useful to know before somebody got blocked for causing such (potential) disruption. Somebody must have done the sums, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Ritchie333, and Leviv. Lev said "DBX, you're still talking about edits–the correct metric is pages edited". No Lev, you are clearly mistaken. Let me clarify your fallacy. If InedibleHulk edits a talk page once and adds 1 signature, he adds 2 links through the time stamp of his sign. Link1 linking that date and Link2 linking the year. So if he edited 1 page, total of 10 times with total 10 signature, we dont have 1 Problematic link but 20 problematic links. It is quite easy to sum up from Xtool that he made close to 30,000 edits on all kind of talk pages. So we actually have 60,000 backlinks to fix.--DBigXrayᗙ 19:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  DBigXray, these 10 "problematic links" on the same page only create one entry on "What links here". So if you remove all 10 links, you will only be removing one entry on "What links here". You have responded several times but never answered my initial question: How many backlinks, total, do you suppose you will remove? I've explained why I think you'll only be removing a couple dozen backlinks per page, out of 4,000–5,000 backlinks per page, i.e. maybe 0.5% of the backlinks, i.e., you're wasting your time. However, I'm done wasting my time discussing this :-) If you want to go remove backlinks, knock yourself out. – Levivich 19:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Leviv "10 of these "problematic links" on the same page only create one entry on "What links here"," No again you are mistaken. At best it will create 2 links if all the 5 comments were made on the same day. And they will be a DATE LINK and YEAR LINK. At worst it will be 10 different Link. 5 DATE LINKS and 5 YEAR LINKS. The back links pointing to the page will not go away until "all are removed". And if that 1 page was archived, (month wise) lets say then you will have 5 different archive pages to fix. Instead of fumbling up with these statistics trying to rationalize the problem it will be better if you help running Ritchie333's fix for these 60,000 links. That will actually be useful here.--DBigXrayᗙ 19:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Um, this massive problem with disruption to bot archiving? Anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

 Doing... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC).

It appears that I now need consensus to do this. Not simply that it should be done, but that I am allowed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC).

I allow it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey

I was sorry to see you have been suffering from the wiki-zombies over the last few days. Normally I steer clear of ANI etc, so would not be aware of what has happened, I wonder how many other minor awfulnesses I have missed.

Bee of good cheer!

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC).

Yeah, I saw you there, too. Too fast, eh? I wish I had that "problem"! I'd change every instance of "is found in" to "lives in" in a single afternoon, rather than just a hundred or so over the years. I still intend to change every "holds the distinction of being" to "is" one of these weeks, though. "Being" is such a hollow verb, except when bees are found to still be so lively. Then it's puntastic, though in an awful minor sense of the word. Anyway, good luck with that silly nimble thimble beetle, bro! I'm going to try cleansing this sanctuary of DBX's mindless droning in plain English; after that, I think I'll find an admin who speaks Latin. Carpe diem, etc! InedibleHulk (talk)

Just for you. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC).

January 2020

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

Diff of personal Attack DBigXrayᗙ 14:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The droning is the content, and I call it mindless because it just keeps coming forward, regardless of its contributor's knowledge that it is undesirable and inappropriate here. It's not "mindless DBX's droning"; you're clearly concerned and thoughtful. I only wish you would focus your considerable mental energy where it's wanted and beneficial. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I caught one of them carpy diems once. But it turns out it wasn't worth much. Still, you can't beat a bit of Classical balls, can you? Satyriconevans123 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I most certainly can not. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray—I think this, from 22:39, 7 January 2020, was uncalled-for—"I hope IH clarifies that he will not revert back to the non-compliant signature in the unblock request and hopefully the unblocking admin will get this in writing." Bus stop (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

...  hopefully the unblocking admin will get this in writing, in carbon-copy triplicate, in holographic longhand, notarized in the presence of two (2) witnesses, at least one (1) of which shall be a justice of the peace or of equivalent rank or station as confirmed by the local court of competent jurisdiction or other local law enforcement authority, simultaneously with the public swearing of a solemn vow in an appropriate ceremony involving blood oaths and icons of the Virgin Mary, together with confirmation (provided in the same manner) of successful removal of all wikilinks from all signatures on all Wikipedia pages from the beginning of time through and including the date of aforementioned swearing, no later than 5:00 p.m. local time. – Levivich 21:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

As long as I don't have to pinky swear. Jammed it this morning, doesn't quite bend yet. Left hand still works, but only sinisterly, can't trust it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm NASCARfan0548. An edit that you recently made to Terry Jones (racing driver) seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Do not do things similar to this edit without citing a reliable source. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 04:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The source is already inline, I just added 58 and 6. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The Internet never forgets!

Muahaha. P.S. I remember you saying that when Neil Peart died anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

No, you don't! Peart died this month and I somehow didn't notice till I saw it on the Main Page. I met Rockstone at some Trump concert, then remembered Rush existed a month ago today. And now I'm telling you to recognize Brandon Barnes as objectively tighter, stronger and faster than Ringo. Admit it, Ringo's just OK! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I had you mixed up with Masem, sorry. You don't have to admit anything about Ringo's supposed mastery of his instrument, unless you want to. He's no Jimmy Chamberlin, that's the important thing! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I have to go now, my planet needs me

Be back indefinitely. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Your planet's moon is Wikipedia, and its citizens will be glad when you return. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day, to proper Moondogs and generic moon dogs alike. Shout out to Green Dog and Moonbird, as well. Hey don't worry, we'll make it on home alright! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

When are you going to get to the fireworks factory?! SQL^{Query me!} 00:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Never, I'm the rappin(g) dog. That premise was entirely a game of cat and mouse. Dogs dunk to the extreme, but don't hold your breath on seeing that to believe it on Commons, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Man, I missed everything. starship.paint (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

You think you're deprived? Wikipedia has nary a Mike Higgs book article in sight, not even a Mike Higgs article. Moonbird and pals weren't here for a long time, but a good time. Thirteen wholesome adventures; never happened, my ass! But anyway, you were here when you needed to be, just missed a bunch of the middle. Long story short, I got buried and came back, but I'm not the same. You've probably heard that one before, details aren't important. Just read Journey to Earth and feel free to join the Demolition Moondog Foundation if you think Wikipedia still has too few stables per cabal. I'm pretty sure it does. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

How much better would it have been if it was a one-week block, I wonder? starship.paint (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey now, that could be reasonably construed as an implication of something or another! Not there's anything wrong with wondering. I think it would've been marginally better to know when my time was up; those conditions of reascension were far from straightforward or user-friendly. Anyway, aren't you going to ask me if I lost weight? Turnabout's fair play, after all. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you endorsed Rocky De La Fuente for President yet? starship.paint (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

No, the right man for the job is a woman. Seems calling her "The Ugandan Headhunter" was a bad idea all along. Anyway, she'll probably seem more "electable" in 2024, so it's all good. I stand by my assumption that Sanders has the cold hand of non-metaphorical Death on his shoulder, though. It may not be tomorrow, or the next day, but maybe May 19th. Natural causes, of course, but good luck explaining that to his loyal IP editors. Everything's a conspiracy, sources say. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You’re going to be in so much trouble if he actually dies on May 19. Levivich 03:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

People die on May 19 all the time, I've hardly been hired by Mayor Pete to influence the future. On an unrelated note, exactly eight months before I died, I may have engaged in some locker room talk with a certain unperson about influencing the political future and remembering New Japan. That's what's going to sink us, Levi old pal! And by "us", I don't necessarily mean anyone. Just the entire Wrestle Kingdom, the "royal we". Seriously though, NO COLLUSION! Innocent speculation, like that free man who said Wild Pegasus' Woman died before Night of Champions; at least my IP isn't anywhere near Bernie Towers. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Official endorsement of Bernie Sanders to win the 2020 Democratic nod

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I didn't want to have to disclose this, but it seems the blowback from the May 19th scandal may indeed be a happening. I repeat, MAY. So in the interest of fairness, I, InedibleHulk, being of sound mind and body (relative to Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden or Dick Cheney, anyway), do hereby pledge allegiance to Team Sanders and genuinely do hope he puts that conflicted and interesting Mayor of Social Media in his place this hot, wet summer, truly I do! I just do declare America's poster child for national socialism has grown a bit "long in the tooth", if you will. MAY have "his best days behind him", as it were. Not exactly the "picture of health" Jackie O or Anne Boleyn were on their big days, if you know what I mean. More like Dunstan a thousand years before the master debatory debut of The Great Dukakis during the long, hard road of '88. You guys remember Dunstan, right? Good guy, just a tad "seasoned", if you smell what Happy Rockefeller was cookin'. Speaking of Henry the VIII (who I most assuredly am not, I might add), let us not dwell in these fields of sorrow without also recognizing that even on days as black as May 19, the undying spirit of Mon Dieu giveth us such splendour as the Eighth Wonder of the World and toppler of Demolition, Andre the Giant. Now good people, don't get it twisted, I won't root for Old Man Berns with the same vigour, vitality or vim I gave up for the True Giant, but from the bottom of my reptilian heart, I swear it to the highest pyramid, it would be nice to see him at least go out like an elderly version of Lyanna Mormont, plunging his tiny symbolic dagger all up in that huge blue-eye's kiss-stealin' wheelin' dealin' biznaitch like it was Space Mountain all over again!

In conclusion, I have absolutely no reason to suspect May 19th is going to be good, bad or unimpressive for anybody (living or dead, Canadian or foreign, famous or infamous). But it could be, because it's made history before. As have 78-year-old men. Good luck, B Team! You might just need it soon!

If Harris comes back, though, this public display of approval is null and void (especially in California). Just saying. She has "it". InedibleHulk (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

February 2020

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, you may be blocked from editing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

You have the absolute wrong idea about this, but whatever. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alzheimer’s category

Funny how Gerry Anderson is listed there, but his obit says “mixed dementia”. Eddie Albert suffered from it for ten years, but died of pneumonia, yet he’s still categorized as dying from it. Do you also watch the news about coronavirus and see it as a planet-killing pandemic? ✌️ — Wyliepedia @ 06:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Fuck Alzheimer's. Fuck dementia. Fuck senility. Fuck the news. Fuck the coronavirus. Fuck killing the planet. Fuck Amaq, fuck Breitbart, fuck CNN. Fuck Donald Trump, fuck Elizabeth Warren, fuck Frank Stallone. Fuck gang rape, fuck highway robbery, fuck inhumane slaughter. Fuck JFK, fuck KFC, fuck LBJ. Fuck me, fuck nobodies, fuck others. Fuck prayers, fuck questions, fuck replies. Fuck sex, fuck taxes, fuck unemployment. Fuck Virgil, fuck Wikipediocracy, fuck x, y and z right in their stupid axes, OK? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this a reference to Edward Norton in 25th Hour. I mean, it was a pretty good monologue. GMG^talk 16:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Dude, you won't believe it. Polkaroo was here, and you missed him again. Don't worry, he's gone to a better place (but I cut off and ate his tail, in case he ever comes back). Probably could've handled it better, in retrospect, "it" referring to the whole sinister undercurrent around this town, but also the funny harmless monster himself. Next time, my fellow misfit, I'll explain it away...next time! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

For now, suffice to proudly say the very last word was meant to be read in the spirit of renowned asshole Denis Leary, o-kay? Two words: no more fucking taxes! George Bush isn't dead, he's frozen. Read his lips: venomous poison! A thousand eyes, trapped forever, y-po, y-po! Pretty sure a thousand is a number, but you didn't hear that from me. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Day-age Creationists

I have no idea why you made this edit.[14]. Pennock is anything but a Creationist. See the current (and original version) as written by Hrafn. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

And I have no idea why you waited this long to correct me, but thanks. Both for caring about the subject more than I do, and making this Section 82. That latter part means more to me today than a man of your age will ever know. Maybe I was afraid before, maybe I was young and reckless and needed to unwind. Now fuck it all, 'cause I don't care! So what, somehow, somewhere we dared to try for something different, try for a little more? Nothing can last forever, and I'm not afraid, anymore! In simpler words, feel free to change anything I marked as wrong in this book of knowledge, except my Talk and User Pages (this is how I remind you of who I really am). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

... for your touch ups on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Canada. I for one have been adding stuff fast and furious and it's good to have a sober second read. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not sober. Just way slower than you. Thanks for cranking all that out in the first place! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It's either this or feel like a babbling helpless mess (but this "not sober" idea of yours, I find appealing). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm high, not drunk, to be clear. If you were wondering about my edit summary, David Milwais is nobody. But David Milwain teaches drumming in Kamloops, and David Millais can hook you up with some fresh rhododendron if you're ever allowed back in England. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, the chief in question, quoted in the G&M story is definitely as we name him, Monias. And I'm high too! I'm a microdoser who's strain of choice is pure sativa, and I'm very careful so I don't just end up paranoid. Particular fan of the "haze" variety. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm puffing "Bakerstreet", but only because it's cheap. Been thinking about smoking less, ingesting more, on account of the "dark cloud" hanging over our lungs. But the pills make my guts feel weird, and those are worth protecting, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I have a non-smoking friend who prefers edibles but my goal is not to be babbling mess and eds are too much for me. BTW, I took another look at the First Nations article and the Council of the Haida Nation are also quoted as saying they're "discouraging" visitors, so I added that. It's significant because the Haida are a big deal on Canada's west coast and that means we have at least two First Nations, very far apart (British Columbia and centrally based Manitoba) beginning to take measures. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Add to your heart's content, I say. A foreigner might think Canada is nothing but Angles and Franks, by the way they're represented here. I just hope "my people" don't embargo the cigarettes. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Bryan Clark

Normally you'd be right possession is a misdemeanor, but the source actually details the charges and they are definitely felonious. I'm not sure we need to have the word "felony" but "conspiracy, illegal control of enterprise, transporting or selling narcotics, drug possession, and possessing a weapon during a drug offense" are definitely not misdemeanor offenses. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Just tried Googling, and yeah, Arizona is complicated. Six levels of felonies, at least, depending on whatever. Anyway, charges are "felony", people, intents and acts are "felonious". But we should be sure about possession first. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood, I refer to the charges or the alleged acts as felonious, not Mr Clark, who very well could be not guilty. I think it's a small technicality and certainly not worth reverting for :) just a note on the fact that that combo represents charges of alleged felonious acts. I don't think we really lose a lot until there is an actual conviction and perhaps the word itself is an undue bias best left avoided. Just thinking out loud with you, I know that the wrestler or his son have been active on that page and so it's important it's presented with all respect to BLP. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

A felony charge alleges a felonious act, but laying a felonious charge would be a felonious act. That's all I mean. The charge and the act are distinct things. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Logan Williams (entrepreneur)

What about this guy? This looks like a promotion article imo (too lazy to do the research). Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like crap (at first glance). I'm probably lazier than you, though. Been self-isolating since the swine flu madness, but for different reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Greg Valentine in Stampede Wrestling

Greg Valentine made appearances in Stampede Wrestling in the 70s. Plus, while some worked for the WWF in the 80s, a handful made appearances in Stampede Wrestling. Velvet McIntyre, Tito Santana, and Valentine were among those who did. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

It's believable, but a source would be nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I saw Velvet McIntyre with my own eyes once, but she wasn't wrestling and neither of us were in Alberta. Good times. Nothing to write home about, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is Greg Valentine talking about getting trained by Stu Hart.[15] But he goes off on a tangent about a cat though. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like something a Stu Hart guy might do. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

WWF and Stampede Wrestling did a talent exchange which is why some WWF talent such as Velvet McIntyre, Wendy Richter, Tito Santana, Greg Valentine, and others are Stampede Wrestling alumni. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Tenuous, but close enough, I guess. Nothing like how Bad News and the Bulldogs were "borrowed" by the Fed, though. Cagematch and Wrestlingdata share a convincingly close chronology on Johnny Junior's early days, so I'm sold! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

An edit summary

Hi. I have WP:ITN/C on my watchlist and my attention was caught by the edit summary for this edit. I've looked at the nomination and the article and I don't get the meaning of the edit summary at all ... if you have a moment, I'd appreciate your filling me in. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Nil by Mouth (film) credits three producers, none her. "My ass" is like saying it seems unlikely. Not impossible, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't catch that you were referring to the film, hence the comment made no sense. Now I get it. Although, a quick Google search suggests that Dwyer did indeed co-produce that film, so I fear that your ass was misinformed. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That's fine, I can blame Wikipedia. Both for cutting her out and for not allowing italics in edit summaries. They're all italics, that's the real problem! Seriously though, sometimes a quick Google search finds keywords Wikipedia and its mirrors want it to find. Happened to "Randall Mario Poffo". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle

One last note from ITNC, Twinkle doesnt require direct use of Javascript anymore. It can be enabled in Preferences (see Wikipedia:Twinkle#Quick info). Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Will consider further, thanks again! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

How's it going, Hulk? Just checking in on you. starship.paint (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Likewise, and a sysadmin can prove it (I took the long way through Talk:Natalia Poklonskaya/Archive 3). Timely as always, you creepy duck! That aside, though, doing fine. Bit hungry, thanks for coming back with groceries! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

(In case anybody's confused, that Wikilink is where Wikipedia sends people who forget StarshipPaint has a period.) InedibleHulk (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Surely you meant Lesley Gore? Plus Poppy's #6 and #10 appropriate? starship.paint (talk) 04:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Aye, no relation to Ed Leslie, my bad. If you're asking which tracks to skip, #3, #6 and #7. But yeah, they're all more appropriate than in January (as is Talk:The Iron Throne (Game of Thrones), if you're ready). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hulk, do you know if WP:PW had admins in the past? starship.paint (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Like, of its own? From those mean streets? As guests? As meddlers? I think HHH Pedrigree should be our king, if that's what you're suggesting, no contest, just dredge up those 16 pounds of gold and slap it on him this Monday, live and free! Bow down to the, bow down to the game! But yeah, that's all the truth I know. Well, that, and how Vega is a star (thanks again for explaining, only 75% confusing now). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

So Lee Vilenski, who got the bit this year, would be the first that you know of? Just curious. starship.paint (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Not to be "that guy", but I thought he already was one. Thought you were, too. You used to be or something, right? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - nah, I don't want adminship, even if they offered it to me. It's a mop, that's not my thing. starship.paint (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it was your thing in the timeline where Mandela died in prison for "fixing" the Bigelow Bears. Weird. You were a Daniel Bryan fan back when it counted, admit it, I can tell by your reluctance to put the strap on Pedrigree. I'm telling you, the kid has potential! Respect 2014's Authority! Seriously though, if we hooked him up with Jimbo's daughter at your next bewildering dinner party with Savio...too soon? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

But yeah, some guy with a C, L and M or N stopped by in the past, seemed important, as if wearing armour. I know that's not super helpful. But it beats "Yes, try searching this building." InedibleHulk (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of buildings, did you hear Jim Cornette's review of the Titan Tower Deathmatch (feat. Mopped Floor)? He makes a great point about how elevators work (or at least should still work). Hell of a sport, though, back when it counted! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Where can I hear the review? starship.paint (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"Official Jim Cornette", YouTube. Bunch of good rants there, somewhat short clips from the podcast. Forget the "video" title, but it pretty much explains itself, recent upload, pertinent thumbnail. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It was User:Cullen328 all along, not to be confused with User:Cullen or User:Callum. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, although the conversation above is difficult for me to follow. I have commented a few times about professional wrestling controversies, but the only substantive work I have done in that topic area is to Dick the Bruiser. Lee Vilenski is much more involved. Can I be of any assistance at this time? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if that would ping you or just link to you, thanks for clearing that up! All I needed to know. User:Starship.paint might have further questions, not exactly following this angle myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: - thank you for working on Dick the Bruiser. That is all :) starship.paint (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint, in the spirit of full disclosure, I will let you know (not that it is a secret) that I lived in Detroit for the first 20 years of my life back in the days when Dick the Bruiser was a local celebrity. I was the pedantic kid who insisted on informing the younger neighborhood TV viewers who congregated in our family room that professional wrestling was not "real". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: so what if you were pedantic? Professional wrestling is indeed, not real. That's fine. :) starship.paint (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

That was about 55 years ago, and I am still pretty much the same guy today. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Then as now, if Ric Flair locks in the figure-four, men of all ages still tap for damn real. Big if, indeed. There's a jabroni MMA fight on YouTube that ends in Boston crab, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Randy Kryn, there's another nobody-except-Dick fan I'd like you to meet here. Maybe you could be Dick buddies! Also pinging User:RadioKAOS, come in KAOS! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the Bruiser was the King of the Ring. He'd then do interviews with a scared looking guy and tell the kids to drink beer. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Aye, beer is the great equalizer, the transcendant lifeblood, the almighty river of relatability. My stepdad hated it (and me) when I stole his TV on Monday nights, but he loved Stone Cold (actual King of the Ring in '96, not for nothin') like he loved his real kid, almost as much as he loved snoring on my mom's couch. The Sandman (wrestler) literally did not wrestle, but crowds still pushed him over the Verne Gagne types, even won a few belts. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nova Scotia killings; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Love of Corey (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Which Canadian law enforcement officials? You're being gullible. I've started a Talk section detailing how, hop in. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I did, dummy. Love of Corey (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm just slow, typing with a Playstation controller (and my hands are cold and there are wolves after me), be nice! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey (2)

Thanks for the greeting earlier today on my talk page! What is preferable from a stylistic standpoint can vary depending on the person, I suppose. I appreciate your humor and look forward to collaborating in the future :) RedHotPear (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

In that case then, between you and me, mics off...Megadeth rocks? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll take your silence as the obvious answer! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? (2)

"touched her vagina"? Seriously?

Aside from that being just bad writing, there's an RfC on talk [16] on this issue and it's pretty much a "NO".

Please self-revert. Volunteer Marek 20:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No. That was seriously where she said he touched her. Are you as upset by "neck and shoulder"? Because without "vagina", it seems like THOSE were what he allegedly assaulted. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The wording is sophomoric. More importantly, there is an RfC about the matter on the talk page right now. The "status quo" is not to include. The RfC itself is heavily leaning not to include. Please self-revert. Volunteer Marek 20:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That RfC wording is ultrawordy and weird, my words saved four bytes in plain English, whole other deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Devil Goat

You devil you "touched her vagina" LOL That article is quite the hellish experience and I appreciate and enjoy your humor. Gandydancer (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This is my vacation from a far worse article (by subject matter, I mean, this new one's more abysmally crafted).InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think "touched" is overly euphemistic. I don't have a vagina, but if I did, I imagine there would be a big difference between "touched" and "penetrated", because that's how I feel about the orifices that I do have. I mean, if you touched my ear, I'd get over it, but that other word is a whole different thing. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd have said "fingered" if the two "good touches" didn't beg for consistency and kid gloves. "Penetration" sounds like blood, porn or bloody porn, even earwise. At least I didn't stop at "vulva". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

What if they were wearing kid gloves? EEng 01:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if Hunter wears gloves when he, you know...does whatever it is he does. I used to know. Probably nothing, cool name, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Only in Ukraine, so he leaves no fingerprints. Same reason Donnie wears gloves in Moscow. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, you didn't know? I was talking about that Helmsley brat. Used to wear gloves before he turned crotch-chopping degenerate with just two words for children... InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Well I will say this: I just do happen to have one of those "vaginer"s (as Lily Tomlin called hers) and if anyone, male, female or Martian, ever put anything into it I'd not only never forget it but I sure as hell would never tweet about listening to their wisdom and only later proclaim that they were rapists. Gandydancer (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, seeing truth in someone's cancer research plans is not quite believing he or she didn't "put it there" a generation earlier. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

And to be clear, I'm EXplaining fairness here, not MANSplaining it. Your vagina, your choice of vendetta/vindication/victory! I also believe dinosaurs are still here, but never aliens. Look, a chicken! The truth is out there. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Here you go again: Business Insider (no pun intended) [17] Inedible I want to ask you something serious. I know that you don't have a vaginer but if you did do you think anyone could get their hand into it while you were standing up unless they did something violent to make you not resist them? I ask because it's hard for me to imagine how it could happen. I know for a fact that it could not have happened to me when I was her age--or any age. I strongly support the MeToo movement but can it go too far? I see that now Monica Lewinsky has decided that Bill Clinton used his powerful position to take advantage of her. [18] In closing I want to say how it almost broke my heart when they booted Al Franken out of the Senate and I will never forgive them for that. Gandydancer (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Standing straight, legs together and soles flat, seems a challenge. But back against a wall, with a guy standing between the knees and a little slickness, seems plausible. Intimidation can substitute for violence. I wasn't there and don't know these two, though, so don't believe either. I just know this article is about her allegation of such manhandling, and it should be described. No different from any article, G-rated to quadruple X. That it focuses so hard on her mild neck discomfort instead strongly suggests editors are moving the goalposts to protect Biden's image or honestly fear the mere mention of female unmentionables, both terrible gameplans. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

And yes, MeToo can, does and will go too far, in general and sometimes. Lying is as human as rape. But in this case, even if Biden did it, admits it and voters remember in two hundred days, he's still not politically worse off than Trump. Worse off than that Libertarian youngster, though, just for overall electability, regardless of what blows over and how. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Can someone explain the difference between a vegetarian, a vegan, and a vaginer? Also, are there ovo-lacto vaginers? EEng 02:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Indelible, maybe you should just walk away from this discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC) p.s. User:EEng yes, Freud knew all about those.

Lions and tigers and flytraps, oh my! Indeed, time to get back to important things. Like introducing a wolverine to cocaine! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

"Reactions" edit

Hi again, IncredibleHulk. Just wanted to share a small bit of concern regarding your most recent in "Reactions" with the justification "Each story is different, not evolving." I personally do not have an opinion as to whether the assault allegation should be characterized as "different" or "evolving," but it seems quite unnecessary to alter how it is described, given that the original description is more similar to the published source. Just wanted to preclude any chance that we are editorializing rather than relaying the content of reliable sources.

The quote from the source was: "She said she didn’t tell the full story about Biden initially in 2019 in part because 'I just didn’t have the courage' and then faced threats after she publicly alleged inappropriate touching."

Thanks! We work well together, and I hope to continue to collaborate in the future. RedHotPear (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The cited source is an opinion piece, this is facts, paraphrasing for accuracy is fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I am referring to this source (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/23/tara-reade-biden-202785). This is Politico (i.e., RS) straight news reporting, not an opinion piece. I am not sure that there is a "correct" way to characterize the second allegation, but I do not think there is a need to change the wording of the source. Thank you. RedHotPear (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to quibble with you over something so minor; I do not necessarily expect you to revert. I just saw that you were discussing this characterization with another editor on the talk page, and I suppose this is my way of sharing my thoughts on this topic with you :) RedHotPear (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I wrote you the most beautiful response, but you edit conflicted me with your minor needless apology. There was religion and Simpsons and ice and fire and Fraggles, but no worries. Suffice to say, you're in charge now and everything's going to be fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If it's not too much to ask, though, could you stop calling me IncredibleHulk? It hurts my credibility, brother, can't let it slide. Not that there's anything wrong with mutants! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Oops! Sure thing, InedibleHulk. Definitely wish I could have seen the elegant response that I unfortunately have missed my chance to see, though I have to say, I have some experience being edit-conflicted by you on that talk page as well, given your habit of going back to perfect your edits ;)

Stay safe. RedHotPear (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to call that perfection, who am I to disagree? At least you can probably copy and paste. I HAVE TO constantly rephrase or retyping it all would literally kill me, through boredom. Part of my rant noted how Politico crashes this browser, so I never ran the test, just blind faith. That's where the angel from The Simpsons came in, not my best crap, on second thought. Anyway, kudos to you, too! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

1RR

Are you aware the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation article is under a WP:1RR restriction? Looking at these: [19] [20] [21] [22] ~Awilley (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Aware of the restriction, unaware if those count as reverts. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

They do. At least the last 3 do (assuming the first one was the first edit of its kind). Meaning you should self-revert the last one if you don't want a block. ~Awilley (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, here's your friendly welcome template. ~Awilley (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

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 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 the 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.

Fuck it, I've seen how intolerant this place can be, I'll bend over and shut my mouth like a good little bitch this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. FYI I just fixed the 3rd diff above where I had accidentally linked the wrong diff. (I can see why you were confused whether that was a revert.) ~Awilley (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I love it when you tell me how I don't understand why you need to fix me, Mr. Willey! I've been a very confused editor lately. Thanks for barging into my office and pasting some sense into my naive underpaid memoryhole, you're the man, boss! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Huh? You said you were confused. I thought it was because of the bad diff. ~Awilley (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, no hard feelings, this meeting is adjourned. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It will be an interesting test case, if indeed IH was not previously noticed about DS, whether an ex post notice qualifies him for a DS block. Not that WP has test cases. SPECIFICO talk 21:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't test me, bro! I'm done with the icy hand of Washington disappointment. RedHotPear is their god now, and Starship's still my surrogate rock/shinning rook/Stone o' Proxy. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't sound very interesting to me. I'm fairly sure it has been tested before and the answer is unless the awareness criteria are met then DS cannot be used. And that's part of the reason the awareness criteria spell out in detail how they may be met. It's possible that refusing to revert may be counted as a violation in and of itself, that's of course a different issue. Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you offer your input?

Hi again, InedibleHulk, and I'm sorry to bother you again! I would like to ask you for your input in order to get a third opinion: can you weigh in on this issue here at Talk:The Iron Throne (Game of Thrones)? I have a history of having trouble with getting the other editor to engage in discussion and I think a third opinion would be very helpful, especially with this issue (perhaps I'm being too nit-picky or whatnot). Thanks! Anatashala (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a problem too small, I'm on my way! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Ty (rapper)

On 8 May 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ty (rapper), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 16:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Keough reply

Guess it's a lingering force of habit of mine to just toss an article stating a COD. I also just figured the MLB source would still work as the better source to cite for his death. Rusted AutoParts 18:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, no. Major League Baseball is a good source for baseball knowledge, but if it doesn't offer a player's cause of death, I'd go with that player's retired wife. Hollywood Life probably sucks for MLB coverage, though, even back when pro sports were alive. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Back before them steroid boys killed the business. Rusted AutoParts 21:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It was them bookie boys in the aughts, dagnabbit! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Meaning the 1900s, not the 2000s, if that wasn't clear by my dirty goldpanner remark. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --FollowTheSources (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Depraved Minds

Sounds like a decent band name. But I'm a nerd for this stuff, so I thought I'd bring the convo here.

Interestingly, the term "depraved mind" isn't defined in the Minnesota statutes and only used twice ([23]). I assume there's some case law on it, but there's some good description here.

Generally, manslaughter is more about negligence. In intro class, I usually describe that more as "failing to provide a reasonable standard of care... did you do something a regular person would realize is risky, like leaving your kid in a bathtub alone".

Anyway, sorry, I've been nerding out about criminal law a bit recently. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I'm a law dweeb, too, appreciate the clarity. Ontario and Minnesota are somewhat different, I suppose for good reason. A lot of phrases on this side of the lakes aren't explicitly defined, either, just gotta hope a jury "knows it when they hear it" (or doesn't, if playing defence). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Greetings

Now that the furor has somewhat died down, I wanted to respond to your note at my Talk. Sorry for not replying there, I didn't want to keep that conversation going. It's nice to "meet" you too. Hope you're staying safe and avoiding cabin fever. Schazjmd (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries, your hesitation paid off, you're caller #100! To be clear, all you win is a slight feeling of accomplishment, and only even then if you appreciate headlining the bottom of my newest archive volume. Also, there's no guarantee someone else won't drop in and steal your prized spot before I both remember how to reset a Talk Page, and boot up the required gizmo. I keep telling myself I'll buy or borrow a USB mouse and keyboard to zap into the futuristic wonderworld of copying and pasting on a television set with a solid-state drive. But I've been accustomed to cabin fever since 2011, cat scratch fever since 1984 and various other fevers since the vast and mysterious interim. I'm also blessed with a large forest in my backyard and a nonchalant attitude toward touching its darkness before chewing my fingers clean like a dog. You ever see an animal that wasn't a human run in circles "hiding" from an invisible enemy? The civilized world is mad with self-control, I tell ya! Make like that famous white rapper Laura Brannigan and "Lose Yourself", eh? All we are is dust in the wind, be like water, Mudwell the Mudbunny and so forth. Long story short, we're all going to die, but it's cool, because we were all dead for billions of years before and just plum forgot. If we can do it once, we can do it all over again indefinitely. Together! Forever! That's why I choose to drink alone lately, how about you? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)