User talk:InedibleHulk/Archive 2

Blah, blah, black sheep.

Quiet in this bright white room now that I've archived. A little too quiet...

If you've got anything to say, feel absolutely free. This isn't meant as an oppresive silence, just a default one.

Thanks, arguments, problem articles, banter, whatever's better than nothing.

Well, me, it was nice talking to myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Explanation

Just wanted to drop you a line for an explanation of why your edits got turned back by the other editors on the Deaths in 2013 page. As a long standing agreement, all race and traffic collisions including lorrys (semis), cars, mopeds, scooters, bicycles, pedestrians when hit by a vehicle are all categorized as traffic/race collisions. If you look at Wiki for "car accident" it will take you to the "traffic collision" page [1]. We have had a couple situations in the past where car accidents were staged which makes them not accidents, so you can not assume that an accident is that. So to simplify it, we use traffic collisions because you have to collide with something (another car, the ground, a telephone pole) in order to wreck your vehicle and do serious bodily injury to yourself or a passenger. Vehicles dont get crumpled up on their own. We also dont use the word "crash" with anything but Planes and Helicopters. A crash is defined as a violent collision that makes a large noise and has an explosion or fire. For train situations, we usually use the term "derailment." If you have any questions, feel free to shoot me a response or one of the other editors. Ciao.Sunnydoo (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

First, thanks for breaking the silence here! That song's fine company, but gets a bit old (except the five chords at 2:20, of course).

I appreciate the explanation. I definitely have a few questions about the policy, but I'll ask them on a talk page later. For now, not a huge deal. Fine with reverting, and I like your username. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Dragon

I think that we should ban BlackDragon. I can't explain all his actions due my poor english level. He deleted your warning and change Eva Marie and two templates about World Wrestling Enterainment -> WWE Again!!. We explained it million times, but it's like talking to a wall.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite the character. Deleting the warnings is fine, but continuing what he was warned about is not. I'll look into it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I see you and Static have also warned him. That seems to be enough for now, at least for the WWE thing, and he hasn't redone that (yet). If he does, it seems an easy block request, but I don't think he's done enough to be permanently banned. Probably someday. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ryback

Hi, I understand and respect some of the changes that was made to Ryback's "In wrestling" section, but certain moves he does a lot more than others. For example, the powebomb, he has done a powerbomb like a thousand times (yeah, I know that is an exaggeration, but you know what I mean) this year, the spinebuster, he always does that to oncoming opponents, and especially the delayed vertical suplex and the military press, those are one of his more regular moves. The backdrop, the big boot, the Thesz press, and I guess the powerslam can be debated even though that I still see him do doing those a lot. I know people criticize him for having a limited movseset but its not as small as five moves like people exaggerate. Also you didn't need to get rid of the photo of him in the corner, setting up the Meat Hook. Write me back so we can settle this out. Thanks. Sir Wrestler (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is things on Wikipedia need to be verifiable. The whole point of WP:SYNTHESIS is to prevent this sort of thing, for the very reason that some things (like the four moves you list) can be debated. That shows it's a subjective opinion. Straightforward claims are either backed up or not. There is no grey area. Cagematch.net, OnlineWorldofWrestling.com and WrestlingData.com all have lists which work great for this. Those aren't the only ones, but good places to start.

Ryback has more than five moves, that's clear from watching even one medium-length match. But they aren't signature moves until some source calls them that. Is a punch or kick signature just because he threw a thousand? Shoulderblock? Hiptoss? Irish Whip? Chinlock? No, but by your criteria, I could list them all for almost everyone.

A long list of basic moves in these sections defeats the purpose of explaining to unfamiliar readers which moves the guy is known for. If you have something like backdrop or powerslam, a reader might think these are moves that win matches or get pops, like real signatures (Animal, Davey Boy Smith and Junk Yard Dog had real powerslams). Ryback's real signatures are on the list, but a reader couldn't know which is which. It's just not educational, more like a list of trivia. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You have to keep in mind, a typical ten-minute match needs to have more filler moves than signatures. If someone's wrestling three times a week on TV, you're going to see the same filler moves quite a few times in even a month. They're regular, but that's only because they have to be. Even John Morrison can't come up with 35 new moves a week. That's what's happening with Ryback.

And I hadn't realized I'd deleted a photo. Sorry. Add that back if you want. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Death count?

Please see Talk:Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson where I started a discussion about whether murdered humans and killed dogs should be added together as equivalent in tabulating the "death count."You insisted on adding them together, after I removed the dog from the "death count, and reduced the number from 4 to 3. I could not find a 'death count" as such, which your edit summary implied must exist somewhere. I just found a listing of the 2 murdered humans and the dog that was killed, along with the perpetrator being killed in a shootout, without the news sources adding them together as if they were of equal importance. The sources you mentioned in your edit summary "In some opinions, kids count for less. In others, killers do. Our opinions don't matter, reliable sources count the dog among the dead. From the way it was covered, so did the killer.)" was not clear as to whether those sources count childrens' deaths as less important than adults' deaths or than dogs' deaths. Could you please clarify on the talk page. and provide citations to those "opinions?" Thanks! Edison (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I responded there. As for the opinions, I'm not talking about sources related to this particular story. Just in general, some people don't care much for children, some don't care about dogs, killers, Gypsies, snakes, trees, gays, Afghans, whoever. That's clear from Googling "(insert group) suck". "Sources", in the edit summary, refers only to sources that say a dog died.

Anyway, opinions don't matter, it's straight logic. A dog is a living animal. It was killed in an event, as reported by multiple reliable sources. Therefore, if we have a list of fatalities related to the event, we don't ignore one based our own prejudice. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

re: 99.242.16.28

Should be interesting to see if this editor finally gets the message once his/her latest block expires. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 03:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hope so. But my brain says no. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Glossaries

I thought glossaries were supposed to be alphabetical. If someone were looking for Blown Spot they would look under B, not M. Is that not how glossaries are done on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DAVilla (talk • contribs) 06:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You've got a point there. I wasn't judging which term was better or considering the alphabet, only that we don't need two. If you'd like to flip it around, I'd see no problem with that. "Blown" is more commonly used than "missed", too, I find. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and TV, including a commercial which ran during the [2007 Super Bowl#Commercials|2007 Super Bowl]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Jeff Kollman Collaborates With Ex-Grim Reaper Singer On Superbowl Commercial

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Dog fatality

WHY THE HELL DOES THE DOG FATALITY COUNT IN THE HANNAH ANDERSON ARTICLE IF ALL OTHER SIMILAR EDITS GET UNDONE IN OTHER ARTICLES?! OTHER USERS SEEM TO AGREE TO THAT AS WELL! LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE ARTICLE; I WASN'T THE ONE WHO UNDONE YOUR EDIT THE TIME BEFORE LAST TIME! IT WAS A SIGNED USER! SERIOUSLY, WTF IS UP WITH THAT?! HEAR ME OUT HERE, DAMN IT! 98.155.17.222 (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm not familar with the other articles, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In the one you tried to make a point by editing, you gave no reasons for adding the dogs, so it's not surprising someone reverted you. In the Anderson case, I've given several reasons, policy-based and otherwise, and came to the local agreement of a compromise (suggested by someone else). The originally objecting editor's points were addressed. Looking at the edit history, I see a few reversions, but no valid reasons or attempts to discuss by policy and logic, rather than gut feelings. I've tried to hear you out for over a week, but you don't say much. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

edit warring

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

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

• Please respect the rules and don't keep adding back in something so many others keep removing. I don't care myself, but they will block you if you keep doing that. Dream Focus 02:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Like the automessage says, consensus and BRD are the way to go, and I have. Local consensus at talk supports the compromise, reached through policy-based and logical argument. What "so many" keep removing is done with meaningless edit summaries like "pathetic". "get real" and "what about other articles?" I know the 3RR policy is strictly number-based, but any potentially blocking admin should see the value of consensus and the lack of discussion, particularly by the 98 IP.

Thanks for the heads up, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Attila Végh

Thanks for RM. FWIW if you wish to bump Attila Végh to Attila Végh (disambiguation) and take that too I would support, but in that case the Slovak fighter's name should be spelled fully in title. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed there is also a poet. A disambig page would make sense, linked to from the top of the fighter's article. Not sure what you mean by spelling the fighter's name fully in the title. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Grammarly @NPOVN

Could you elaborate on your response, perhaps on the article talk page? Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose, but you've explained the problems pretty clearly. I don't think I can add much more than a "what s/he said". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated! --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Clock

Hi InedibleHulk, For what its worth. I have come across this before. For a clock of this era, if you look inside, you will see that the whole thing is run by a clock chip. You cant miss it. It is the biggest IC in there, with lots of legs. Now this is for information only – you need not understand this to fix it. There are two legs on that chip that are side by side. If they are shorted out it runs on 50Hz. If they aren't it runs at 60 Hz. From your description something has happened which has caused a short. It may not necessarily be close to the chip. Now, if you can readily get hold of some dry-cleaning fluid, a paint brush and clean both sides of the printed circuit board with that, I' m sure this will cure the problem. If dry-cleaning fluid is not available just use some q-tips. Is is probably just crud that has caused a short. Just because the clock is old, don't entertain the thought of throwing it away. I have still have socks that are 40 years old!--Aspro (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. My confidence in cleaning fragile parts with Q-tips and alcohol is still somewhat shaken from recently "fixing" my Playstation, but once that problem's resolved, I'll likely have a go at the clock. I don't intend on throwing it away, regardless of the outcome. I've grown fond of it, and without a job or traditional TV, knowing the time while in bed isn't vital. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Critical acclaim

Hi, InedibleHulk (which takes me back to the old days of Marie Severin's Inedible Bulk!). I was going by the standard used at WP:FILM, where we differentiate between reviewers of contemporary films and critics/historians who judge movies with the perspective of time and cultural importance. In other words, Citizen Kane, La Strada and The Rules of the Game are critically acclaimed. Marvel's The Avengers was positively reviewed. For contemporary movies, the feeling at WikiProject Film is that "positive reviews" is more neutral and carries fewer hyperbolic connotations that the cliche phrase "critical acclaim." --Tenebrae (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. It is thrown around a lot. Guess there should be a distinction, like between "legend" and "star". InedibleHulk (talk) 07:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead

If you want to keep on going on and on and on about your dubious reasoning for adding it, then just do it. Frankly, I'm tired of how unreasonably stubborn you are and the way you keep talking down to me as if I'm a child. With your attitude I'm not surprised you've been in so many edit wars. I don't remember something as blatantly nonsense as "we say the words on the ads" being a valid secondary source, but if that's your interpretation of reliable, published sources, by all means go ahead and add this nickname in that you're convinced is verifiable. I'm done here. Antoshi ☏ ★ 03:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for any offense. Wasn't trying to talk down to you, just trying to be simple and clear. If I didn't understand a policy, I'd appreciate the same. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Anyway, I won't say it's a nickname, like I didn't before. Just stating what's on the ads. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Dewey

Can you do explain the Dewey Barnes situation? According to the source, Dewey is a indy wrestler who works in TNA as merchandising seller, so... if he has a contract and wrestles, he should be in the roster. Also, I saw your editions in Sean Waltman. Here is an article about Dixie Carter, If you want to improve her article. I want to improve it, but my English skills aren't enough. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Does he wrestle for TNA, though? If not, he should be in backstage personnel, not main roster. I'll see about Dixie sometime, but it might be a while. Something about that woman just bores me. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Haha, ok. Yes, he wrestled in TNA. He had three matches and two backstage segments as the Ethan Carter III's jobber. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, then the wrestling bit will need some sort of source. The vendor source looks alright. Trent Van Drisse seems knowledgable about the Nashville scene, from a quick Google. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I must understand in simple words

In order to understand the joke, "Hulk make nobody laugh", you need to know my user name, medeis, is Greek for "nobody". μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

That went right over my head. Figured you were just cranky. Thanks for adding a touch of the highbrow stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

And with Medeis, being cranky is usually a safe bet. :-) StuRat (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Depressed mother cat

For your depressed mother cat, I recommend the use of surrogate kittens. Rolled up socks can serve this purpose. This will last until her maternal hormones clear her system, then she will lose interest in the "kittens". StuRat (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. She's gone from lazy and starving to simply antisocial, though. She apparently eats now when I'm not looking, but finds a new hiding spot each time I discover the old one. I have the feeling she'd leave the socks where I find her next, but worth a shot. I think we're out of the woods now, just a taming issue. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I don't quite get your link to that particular forest in Japan, though. Is that where you live ? Also, did you know that the species name felis sylvestris, mean "forest cat" ? StuRat (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The forest is known for attracting suicides. I don't live anywhere near it. I didn't know about the species name, but found a Norwegian forest cat in my Canadian forest. He was much easier to tame, but this one is coming along now. Sardines were the way to her heart. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, "Sardines" sounds like a good name. And having something around to eat those God-awful things, whenever they show up, sounds like a good idea. :-)

Glad your Norwegian cat isn't depressed, since Norwegian Blue parrots are always pining for the fjords. :-) StuRat (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ha! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Bah! He's the only one with that exact name. The other articles use "War Lord". Not your fault, you're just a robot. But bah! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Neidhart debuted for [[World Championship Wrestling]] on the May 15 episode of ''[[WCW Worldwide]'', beating a [[Job (professional wrestling)|jobber]] with the [[Professional

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

WCW World Heavyweight Championship

I understand it was called the World Championship but WWE officially recognizes it on there official website WWE.com as the WCW World Championship so in any case you can leave World Championship but add WCW World Championship as well let me know what you think about that JMichael22 (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and they also call the title Sammartino held the "WWE World Heavyweight Championship", as of this past Sunday. But that's now. Names change, just like with wrestlers. We wouldn't ignore that Mark Calloway was once called The Punisher, just because WWE.com recognizes him as The Undertaker. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh wait. I get you now. Yeah, "WCW World Championship" should also be there. Should be the title of the article, in fact. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Jasper

Hi, Hulk. Do you know if this is allowed? Link articles to a user page? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Not in articles. On talk pages and other user pages, it's fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Podcast

Hi, Hulk. Uhhh, a question. In SoloWrestling, I saw the comments between Jericho and Edge about The Nexus storyline. I added to a few articles, but user Antoshi reverted because "SW it's not a reliable source". So, I used the podcast website as source, but "it's not RS". Sooooo. I used the podcast itself as source, but "It's not RS, because doesn't appear in the style guide". Can you help me? I remember you used some podcast as source in the articles of Gregory Helms and Sean Waltman, so I don't understad why Antoshi says the Chris Jericho official podcast isn't a reliable source. Thanks. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

PS: Also, I know, I wrote like a donkey. I'm ill. :S --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen a donkey write so well. Anyway, there shouldn't be a reliability problem, especially if you're writing about Edge or Jericho themselves. Perfectly fine primary source. If you're writing something about others, like how Cena insisted he go over instead of Barrett at Survivor Series SummerSlam, just be sure to say "according to Edge" or similar. Try to cite specific times, so people don't have to listen to the entire show to verify (I'm sometimes bad for that).

I'll take a closer look at the edit war, and see what's what. Get well soon! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be settled. Good stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited WWE 2K14, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Giant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Foolish robot. I didn't add it, I just moved it. But I guess the problem's still the same. Humankind to the rescue! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I guess I did mess that one up. Still... InedibleHulk (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Kellum began training for pro wrestling under veterans [[Nelson Royal]], [[Gene Anderson]] and [[Ivan Koloff]. He made his professional debut on January 1, 1990 against ACW champion L.A. Stevens

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha! That one I did just move. Silly robot.

Alright, I'll go do your bidding. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rory MacDonald (fighter) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• UFC Fighter Rankings]</ref> and ranked the #4 welterweight in the world by [[Sherdog]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sherdog.com/news/rankings/5/Sherdogs-Official-Mixed-Martial-Arts-Rankings-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• from Prof. Roberto Maia. Kenny and his brother Keith own and operate Florian Martial Arts Center], a martial arts academy in Brookline, Massachusetts near Coolidge Corner, which teaches Brazilian

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Sin Cara

After reading this article it's pretty much confirmed now that Místico has quietly left WWE. You were correct, WWE just hasn't gotten around to changing the Sin Cara Twitter account yet. Thanks for our discussion, I wish you well. Daren420c (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

All the best in your future endeavours, too. You didn't have to delete the discussion, but it's fine if you want. Look on the bright side; now that he's not forced to wrestle WWE TV-style and botch it, he's free to be the legit luchador people loved in the first place. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as a fan of Místico, I agree 100%. Thanks again. Daren420c (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 January

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

• On the Jussier Formiga page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Life sucks

--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Only sometimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

For real? What you wrote in "reported to WMF" was worth a lot. Nevertheless, life is worth living when you are led to the Truth.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And what's your idea of Truth? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

What this is all about. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquakes_in_2013&action=history (see 92.8.21.99's message; one of my fellow angel's (92.8.21.99's) cheerful message of hope to me in these cursed & tough times) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:92.8.21.99#Hello_my_fellow_angel._Response_to_your_message_to_me_on_Earthquakes_in_2013.2FHistory (my reply). Also see my deleted talk page. Why/how do you wikify your timestamp?--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd never given that much thought myself. As for my signature, I use [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] {{subst:CURRENTTIME}}, [[{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTDAY}}]], [[{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}]] (UTC) I do it because I don't like the backwards and commaless date format, and think today's historical anniversaries are important and should be shared. Did you know Charlie Chaplin made his film debut a century ago? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I was brought to the Truth recently, about the time when IP 92 posted that message.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#Grand_Theft_Auto_2. Did not know Charlie Chaplin's anniversary was 2 "days" ago. See User_talk:Epicgenius#Thanks. well on feb 27 & mar 8 there´ll be eq "adversary". very soon, evil will go from nation to nation. is whole life just a big test to see how long you can stand it?--78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

What's eq "adversary"? And yeah, life is about living. Not sure what the reward is, but I'm aiming for a hundred, just in case. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Earthquake anniversary.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC) This is a forged signature by User:Pubserv diff who has been blocked as a sockpuppet. μηδείς (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked or not, thanks for clearing that up. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• to defeat He-Man. Tri-Klops appears. Teela and Man-at-Arms tell viewers to resist the [[Impulse (psychology}|impulse]] to do something their wiser parent says is dangerous.
• |}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe episodes may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• before he gains its power. Zodac tells viewers it is just as important to know when to use great [[(Power (social and political)|power]] as when to not.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

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

List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Rehabilitation, Power, Caution, Obedience, Help and Magic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Haystacks

Entirely possible. Or maybe I intended to request a move but forgot about it like I did with Sid. Who the hell knows what I was thinking.LM2000 (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Bigfoot article

Figured this might help us with our disagreement on final outcome of the Silva ruling: Since UFN Bigfoot v Hunt was regulated by UFC, they're ruling effects his official record. He now contains one NC.

http://www.ufc.com/fighter/Antonio-Silva

Thoughts? Dstrange (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that source contradicts itself. Despite the (1) in the record, it still says Majority Draw in the record table (as opposed to the NC in Jessica Eye and Pat Healy's profiles). I guess you might have a case for editing his record, but not the results. Consider, how does a contest end in a draw for one fighter only?

Also, it's common practice here to source fight records to Sherdog, which calls it a draw. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

specify your email

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pubserv (talk • contribs) 13:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Just specify it in your wikiprofile so i can user WP:emailuser (you know me)--Pubserv (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

If I know you, I don't know it. And if you have something to say, this is the place. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

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

Dean Malenko (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mistico

Dino Bravo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Native Canadians

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber RfC

If you have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I have all the time in the world. It's the desire that needs thanks, if anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hulk! Sorry to bother you again about Bieber. Unfortunately, only 5 of the 16 editors who posted their opinion in the General survey part of Bieber's RfC posted again in the point-by-point survey. Progress simply isn't made - could you help to post in the responses to above points subsection to move it forward? Thank you very much. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

No thanks. I barely cared enough to say what I did, and still wouldn't recognize any of his songs except "Baby". But good luck. Keep it concise and to-the-point. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Roster

Well, about the roster, I think that this kind of workers are hard to write. First, are random jobs. Timekeeper, catering... I doesn't looks like an important job (also, looks like a job whose workers change every year.). However, most important, sources. The source is the magazine from august 2013. 6 months later, do you know if they still in WWE? 2 years later, will they stay in the roster because once, they appeared in a 2013 magazine? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you've got a bit of a point there. We can't be sure of the turnover rate. Still, that's often the case on Wikipedia. We use the most recent sources, till something comes along to the contrary. Part of the whole "verifiability, not truth" thing.

And I think you're underestimating the importance of these jobs. The seamstress makes all the costumes you see, the lighting technician makes the entrances look cool, catering keeps the wrestlers alive. Compare that to a creative consultant, part-time "producer" or member of the board. When have you ever noticed something they did? Or, less importantly, all the "unassigned personnel". Sitting at home is notable? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Jan the makeup lady was around 25 years in 2012. She might still be. That's not proof that everyone stays around that long, but something to consider. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That's why in Spanish Wiki, the Admins decided to delete all rosters and alumnis. Backstage roles are bitches. We can source if, for example, Blackjack lanza was hired in 2007, but we can't source if Lanza stills in WWE right now. Sometimes, we hear about them (Jamie Noble in WWE tour...) but I don't think we'll hear about the catering girl or the timekeeper. Also, I heared one WWE backstage guy died due cancer. He spent years in WWE, why did nobody include him in the roster? Also, one question. NXT isn't a independent promotion, so.... Does Keirn still the president (legit or kayfabe)? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you feel better with an "As of August 2013" note? I think that's as far as I'm willing to bend, given the verifiability practices here. We should, of course, periodically Google to see if anything has changed, but it's unfair to hold some positions to different, unreachable standards.

Keirn shouldn't be President of something that doesn't exist. Good catch. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think my feelings doesn't care in Wikipedia XD As you prefer. Lucky, I doesn't worry about the rosters a long time ago. However, I'll change Keirn (poor Keirn, we have denoted him from President to Trainer) Also, what do you think about ask an Admin. to help us with the eternal discussion about Jargon? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Our feelings sort of matter. I feel Keirn should be a principal, and have a superintendent who constantly yells "SKIN-NER!" at him. It'd get over. As for the "jargon", whatever you feel is best. Maybe ask "JIM-BO!" InedibleHulk (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

We are talking about Simpsons. Did you mean Jimbo or JIMBO? Can we talk with JIMBO, really? How? Maybe, we should talk with Starship Pain and try to make a new consensus, right? I mean, think, if we are gonna talk about wrestling, we should use essential wrestling terms (face, heel, jobber) not every single word in the wrestling dictionary, but I think is silly to substitute face and heel for fan favorite and villain (yes, my University teachers were very hard with the words we use in works. German education) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can talk to Jimmy Wales like any other editor, through his talk page (Jimbo Jones is much more elusive). But I don't know if he'd be interested in this. It's more of a local problem, anyway. Consensus seems to be roughly the same every time we bring it up (about 70-30% for proper terms), so I doubt a "new" one would be much different. I haven't seen "villain" or "hero/favourite" in a wrestler article for a long time, just that event disclaimer. So it seems things are mostly working as the general Wikiproject decided, even if there are a few dissenters. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course. If WP says we'll not use term, I'll shut up. However, talk about a consensus 7 years ago and (I think) the only user who stills in Wikipedia is WillC... maybe is time to search a new consensus with the current users. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

We have. A few times in the last few months, even. There's no policy against using them, only a guideline which suggests considering its advice. We've all considered that, and most of us agree with you. That's consensus. We don't need it in Support/Oppose vote format to see where the current members stand, but if that's what you're suggesting, it probably couldn't hurt. No threaded arguments, just everybody pick their side and then we can all shut up about it for at least another year. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me give you both some advice. A consensus isn't established just because someone likes something, certainly not when these policies are involved. Considering I was mentioned, let me give you a history less. 6 years ago the consensus was established. For 6 years this discussion has continued. No one has ever wanted to follow it, but we do. Why? Because we need to. Our job is to write professional articles that are well written and understood by all audiences. The main complaint by outside readers were that heel, face, jobber, etc made no sense to the reader and the articles which they linked too were even harder to understand. This discussion has never stopped and it won't stop. Because we could establish a new or keep the old consensus and in a week or two the discussion will start all over again. Why? Because that is how it is. The same is kept. A new editor comes around who doesn't like it, new discussion held, and all the ones that agree (such as yourselves) will join him and the discussion continues. CRRaysHead90 has been arguing his point since 2008 even when he was banned from the English wiki and was on simple. You must understand, jargon, in-u, and fiction are not advice. They don't say advice. They are the Manual of Style and that is how we are supposed to write based on several discussions through wikipedia's history. If you don't like that agreement, then I suggest moving onto the pro wrestling wiki. Otherwise this is destined to continue as to get articles to Featured Article level, we have to go by these policies and any editor who wants to get an article to that level will as well. I appreciate you talking about me though, I feel special.--WillC 10:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You admit nobody wants to follow it, and it's been argued for years by many various editors. That doesn't sound like consensus, that sounds like a strong-willed Will. We apparently stopped making Featured Articles about six years ago, oddly enough, and it seems that is what's destined to continue. And again, the Manual of Style is not a policy. It's a guideline. "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". You've been here longer than we have, so I suppose you're "special", but you're a slow learner. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I told you, WP:Jargon says minimize jargon, but it feels like we avoid completely every single term because "people will not understand". Minimize isn't avoid every single word. Again, other articles use a little Jargon. Videogames talks about First Person Shooter or RPG... they use them and maybe, people don't understand the terms. WillC, I consider you a great user, but I think this is wrong. Maybe is time for a new consensus, because other users agree to change it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

We do use Jargon: Lethal Lockdown, Three way match, submission, pinfall, elimination, angle (word used in mainstream public as well), card, dark match, enforcer, interference, lumberjack, near-fall, fall, number-one contender, rematch clause, segment, signature move, tap out, vacant, etc. These are just a few terms I can think up off the top of my head and found in Glossary of professional wrestling terms. We minimize jargon yet use plenty of the terms. We use jargon still.--WillC 15:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

So what's the harm in using more common jargon? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Because the ones above are too difficult to explain, unlike heel and face.--WillC 21:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"Too difficult" is a subjective opinion, and I don't share it. Some of those (segment, vacant, elimination) are standard English. And like has been said, faces like Cena and Hogan aren't "fan favourites" or "heroes". They're often poor sports and get booed. So that explanation is nowhere near the one we already have. Same with "villain". Heels often have good reason for doing what they do. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Why stop at one?

When I read this edit, I thought that your comment about "There was no apparent link to the Winter Olympics ..." was a sort of satirical take off of the sort of thing that journalists do, but no, it really is true. What I want to know is why they don't mention a few thousand other things that are totally unrelated, while they are about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I dunno. I guess airplanes are sexy. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If you mean Wiki editors by "they", that is. If you mean the media, "they" certainly haven't stopped at one. And if you mean "they", they'll only stop once we're all out of bubble gum. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Must See

Here's a link to absolutely the best Jeopardy episode, and perhaps gameshow ever, I broke out in tears at the end. It was aired a year ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME4n7oXlDT8. μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The absolute best of anything is usually worth a watch. Haven't worn my thinking cap in a while, glad it's a teen game. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure, life is about sharing what makes you happy. Ping me when you've seen it. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Not bad for $3,000! I like how surely he bet that last Daily Double. Not even a blink. And some John Carpenter swagger to win. Good stuff, μηδείς. A bit too easy, but I did learn Ladon wasn't a gorgon. And some stuff about movies and books I've already forgotten. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, the questions are too easy in the college championships. Not the kids' fault. But all three players were excellent, and the betting deserved an Oscar. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

No Tony, though. Strange how they all missed Hamlet. Isn't that still the most famous play in the world? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber RfC: second survey

Hi Hulk, thank you for your contribution to the RfC on Justin Bieber's behaviour and legal issues. Some users have posted that the RfC is currently a mess, and that we need to be very explicit in what we agree to include and what we don't. As such, I have created a second survey, which cuts the content into points. Could you take the time to post your opinion on each point, whether you think it should be included or not, or summarized, or changed. It will be a bit tedious but we need your detailed input to move forward. Thanks again. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I gave a detailed bunch of strokes and italics. Aside from that, I'll just stand by my original stance. If he gets shit from authorities, probably notable. If he's getting shit from fans or tabloids, probably not. I really don't care enough for tediousness. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, discussion's underway. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Cause of Death

While we appreciate the enthusiasm, please don't undo established causes of death on the Deaths in 2014 page. Suicide is a cause of death and is stated as such in Wiki (see link). Cardiac arrest may be an event as you stated, but it is still listed on inquest and coroner findings in the US and around the world. Usually it is not specific to the type of problem such as cardiomyopathy, arrythmia, etc because those are hard to pinpoint and many don't bother for an inquest b/c it doesn't need to be that specific. There can be 50 different causes of cardiac arrest, but it will be listed as Cardiac arrest on the death certificate as the cessation of blood flow is what leads to brain death. As an example, when my grandfather passed away years ago, his death was stated as Cardiac Arrest on the death certificate. It is also listed that Cardiac Arrest is put on death certificates at the very bottom of that linked page. And that is all we need. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line. I am usually one of the CoD hounds so I check in a few times a day. We have a number of people who don't like putting CoDs down, but there is a group of us that try to be as detailed as possible. Ciao. Sunnydoo (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I also started a section on the Deaths Talk page about the topic. If you are more comfortable talking there, feel free to reply. It is a little bit more of a technical argument and one that we had on the Deaths page several years ago. I am sure WWGB has it linked if we need to re-examine the issue. Thanks again. Sunnydoo (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I'm not trying to start an edit war, all I'm trying to do is prevent one. Hogan goes in "other talent". he gets put in a match...then what? We have much more flexibility by having him on the roster...this way we're covered. He may or may not wrestle, but all I'm looking to do is have all bases covered, rather than locking myself in a narrow path, that's all. I'm offering this beer as a sign of good faith, and to show I have no desire to fight, just merely show why it's safer to leave him on the roster. Vjmlhds 17:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the beer. I have as much desire to fight as Hulk Hogan does, according to the BBC quote I shared. If he's booked for a match, it's a two-second job, and I definitely won't argue. Just a matter of something indicating he'll wrestle. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

At the end of the day there's nothing definitive either way of if he'll wrestle or not (and I just don't mean at Mania, I mean down the road as well), all I'm saying is since it's Hogan, there's always the chance. (Hogan in a match will sell tickets, Maddox/Colter won't) so just for the sake of being safe rather than sorry, having him on the roster is the more prudent way to go. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a chance anything could happen. The future is notoriously uncertain. It's why Wikipedia deals in present and past. Much more verifiable. Some IP added a section for Scotty 2 Hotty's WrestleMania XXX title match today. It's possible, but we'd be sorrier than safe leaving that. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hogan's actually in WWE and part of the WWE.com roster. IP guy is obviously a troll. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, the same could be said for several people. Justin Roberts, even. Not the troll part. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

No hard feelings Vjmlhds 22:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Really now?

Don't be a dick. Don't template the regulars.

Do I really need to link to these policies? Have to actually never read them before? You're being unnecessarily immature about this simply because the discussion didn't go your way and I advise you walk away from your computer for a bit if it's making you this upset. Gloss • talk 20:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You're the dick here, and for a "regular", this is the first I've seen you. I've summarized how the discussion hasn't gone your way, and how you're making things unverifiable and vague, and you come back with comparisons to sports teams. Deleting your warning doesn't mean you weren't warned. I get that you want to change this, but you're the only who sees a problem with it. You do really need to link to these policies, because I have no idea which ones you mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been editing here for 7 years. Just because this is the first time you're seeing me means nothing. I'm a former featured list director with years of experience and very rarely have problems with anyone until they begin to assume bad faith and resort to edit warring. Your "warning" means absolutely nothing, so I'm sorry you wasted your time. m:DICK, WP:DTTR. Gloss • talk 20:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a waste of time. Next, you get you final warning, then I ask for a block. When I said "regular", I meant in wrestling articles. You should leave them to those who understand the concept. The way you phrased your opening remarks there, it seems you were more interested in creating controversy than improving anything. Not the way to go about things. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I will not be getting a block and I will not be getting a final warning. Plain and simple. And before you make assumptions, you should probably check your facts. I was one of the most active members of WP:PW from 2007-09 (somewhere around there). And sometime between then and now (while I was inactive) you've apparently stepped into the project. Explains why you don't know who I am, but doesn't give you a reason to try to lessen my contributions here. The way I phrased my opening remarks? You left me a template warning. A user who is almost on his 7th year of contributing to Wikipedia, in good standing, a template warning on my talk page. That is not the way to go about things, and if you read WP:DTTR you'd fully understand. Gloss • talk 20:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, good to finally meet you. Things have changed since you were active here. That's not a reason in itself to argue your proposal, but the other reasons I've given are. You could be here for 70 years, but if you do the things mentioned in the warning, you deserve it. I don't want you blocked, but it seems like you're adamant about forcing this, and that's disruptive. By "opening remarks", I mean at the personnel talk page, not here. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There was no disruptive editing and nothing I did warranted that warning. You began edit warring with me and luckily for you, you stopped before breaking the 3 revert rule. Gloss • talk 20:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

And note that my last comment didn't give you the right to break the 3 revert rule. Gloss • talk 20:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Technically, no. But you said you're done, so the war should reasonably be assumed over. Just cleaning up. The revert brought back sources for contentious unsourced material about living people (injuries), so I think I'm excepted. You could probably argue if you wanted, but if you're as done as you say, no point in that. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WWE personnel ¬¬ --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it. Jesus. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, if somebody ask... It was your fault XD --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. Like the green Hulk smashes millions of innocent cars, and the orange Hulk upstages millions of mid-carders, sometimes the white Hulk has to break a few eggs to make an omelette. The important thing is we're the good guys. The "heroes". The Super Heroes. In training. WP:SHIT. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at List of WWE personnel. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Dpmuk (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

InedibleHulk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

No dispute with the reason for blocking. There was an edit war, and one side bowing out doesn't negate 3RR. But I'm no single-purpose troll or vandal. There are other unrelated, uncontroversial edits I thought I'd make in the next 24 hours. Probably nothing excellent, but good. Does (a little) more harm than good keeping me locked down. There's still an issue on the page, but other editors have it under control. Right before I was blocked, I baked my new "opponent" some brownies, complimented his summary and politely asked him to make a reasonable change to his approach, rather than revert him. If that doesn't show good faith, what does? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 01:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

See below. Dpmuk (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not totally against unblocking but would like a bit more discussion about what you did wrong and what you will and won't do in future. Not going to actually answer the unblock request as I believe (and this is a personal view not supported by guidelines or policy) that someone who's blocked always deserves a review by a second admin. I won't object to any other admin unblocking if they feel it's appropriate. Dpmuk (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I should use the edit summary less for my side of discussions. Sometimes I assume others think with the same sort of logic I do, and that they'll go "Oh, right. Makes sense" once I explain or rebutt something. So I just do it to save time. And sometimes it does work. But when it doesn't, it often strikes a confrontational nerve, and that's not helpful. More time discussing on talk could be. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I know what you're getting at but at face value saying you're use edit summaries less is a bad thing. So, just to make sure that on this issue what I'm thinking you're trying to say is what you're actually trying to say can I ask you to complete the following "you're use edit summaries less and instead..."? (You don't actually have to complete it but it's the best way I can think of to put the question - I would have course like some sort of answer). Dpmuk (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, less often than talk pages when faced with controversy. My bad. When I do edit or revert (legitimately), I'll of course still say why. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

And of course stay away from editing the actual page while using the talk page. Anyway I'm about to unblock you. I strongly suggest you stay away from the article for a while - discuss things on the talk page by all means but I suggest you avoid actually editing the article for a while so as to not inflame things further - even if you think there's consensus I'd let someone else decide that and implement it. You'll be on a very short leash for a while when it comes to that article and it won't take much to get blocked again (I will give the same advice to the other two if I unblocked them). Dpmuk (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, of course. I won't touch the WWE personnel at all for a while, whether it's related to this or not. Seems like a magnet for controversy. Something similar going on at Deaths at 2014, and you'll be happy to know another amicable conclusion was reached through discussion while I was blocked. Pretty good, no? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Good, good. I think everyone just got a bit heated there. Glad it looks like things are settling down. And yes, WWE and the like does seem to attract controversy. I've noticed problems in these areas more than once before and it's not an area I'd never normally just browse through out of interest. Dpmuk (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a little heat. Thanks for being cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Like Gloss, InedibleHulk wasn't as involved with the war than the other two, with one taking the thing very personally. Rusted AutoParts 02:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I am so sorry.

		The Good Friend Award
		I am so sorry...I feel partly responsible for you getting blocked, and for that I sincerely apologize. You and me usually work very well together, and this isn't something I sought. We both got unblocked, and I'd just like you to accept this as a gesture of both appreciation for your efforts and intents, and as a token of apology for getting you in this mess in the first place. Vjmlhds 02:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries. It was quick. I've been cut off longer while making a sandwich (the bigger ones, anyway). Gesture accepted. Kumbaya. If we have to fight over this Hogan crap, we'll do it like multiracial sportsmen. No eye-pulling or hair-gouging. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Take a looksie at the WWE roster talk page at the proposal I laid out...I'm basically attempting to remove the tumor that made the article so toxic to start with. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

NXT Arrival

Hi Hulk, seeing as you've edited NXT Arrival, you may wish to contribute to a discussion I've started over in WT:PW on whether NXT Arrival deserves an article, and how the WWE Network affects our articles in the future. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yer most recent glossary edit

Of course, there once was a time when most wrestling programs on television were little more than hour-long commercials for house show matches. In many cases, you have filler throughout the entire program (Mulkeymania is running wild, bradda!!!). So it's nothing special, just like a vignette is nothing special when you compare with local promos. This leads into what was really on my alleged mind. Who had it worse back in the day: fans in the Northeast, who tuned in each week to see the best part of the hour occur at the very beginning (you know, the part which ends with "my name is JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEE"), followed by a match which lasted long enough for Howard Finkel to break in and announce exciting World Wrestling Federation action in such exotic locales as Tuckahoe and West Islip; or, those folks in Indiana who tuned into "This is Sam Menacker with All-Star Championship Wrestling and you're watching The World's Most Dangerous Wrestler Dick the Bruiser" week in and out for years? I vote for the former, as Dick had more competitive matches on TV plus (for a while, anyway) Bobby Heenan. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Can't say. I didn't know anything aside from WWF existed till 1989. Most of my Bruiser "memories" come from a few tapes and YouTube, so never got routine enough to annoy. I'd rather hear Finkel interrupt matches to advertise actual wrestling than hear Cole shill his stuff for 2/3 of a Raw, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

rebel

HI. Can you help me with Rebel article? An user wants to demand me. :( (aand im near 3 edit war because ge included unsourced and no notable matches, even the rebel facebook page and support for him) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

300

Hello!

About this [2] edit, I added that cn-tag you removed. My reasoning is that that uncited part, if it should stay, must written something like "Paul Cartledge (or whatever RS pointing out that this is an error in 300) further points out that...", otherwise it´s just us editors saying "this is an interesting error in this film". I´m fine with taking that uncited bit out, but I´d like to hear your opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's technically synthesis as is, but it's something viewers may reasonably be skeptical about, and is easily verifiable by failing to find the word "elephant" in Greco-Persian Wars. Harmless bit of OR here, saves those readers some time. Something more contentious, like saying there were elephants (or mammoths), that's the harmful kind.

But I very barely care. Whatever you'd like. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

In my view "it's something viewers may reasonably be skeptical about" is not good enough, especially in a featured article, so I´ll remove it. We´ll see what happens. Thanks for talking! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Keep the snark to thyself. Vjmlhds 17:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't mean anything other than "present your evidence" and "I've been associating things I say with cartoons today". Certainly nothing to do with balls. You're safe here, man. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

All good. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of Complications

We use complications in several cases. First many of the Complications you removed were direct cites from the articles themselves. Often times with things like Cancer, its not the cancer that kills you but stuff such as the Radiation therapy. However that is a complication as you never would have had radiation therapy otherwise and the coroner lists it as complications from cancer. Joe Lala on the 19th is a good article to read on that.

We also use it in cases for strokes where the person does not die right away. Usually secondary infections, swelling or damagae sustained to the blood system are responsible for these deaths. However again, usually the article will say complications from stroke rather than what they are. It is not the single event "Stroke" that kills you, but the effects afterwards of the event. Diabetes is also another usual suspect. Usually its not rapid blood sugar failure that kills you but systemic collapse brought on by the disease over a number of years. There are several of those listed this month such as Butler and the corolio singer that died in Peru. We also use it in cases of multiple problems as it may be tough to say which one directly caused the death.Sunnydoo (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I know all that. Just again, trying for some consistency among immediate and proximate causes on this page. We go from one extreme to the other here, specific as cardiac arrest, then vague as shot. In my opinion, "complications" just begs the question. Points out that more immediate causes exist without telling readers what they are. In those cases, the underlying cause should suffice. This is usually as sourceable as the specifically vague term, we just. Though yeah, sometimes it requires a little OR, and that's not wikicool.

I'll let it slide (your points are valid), but still find it odd. Especially while we're still sticking with "traffic collision" for every death involving a vehicle (also letting it slide, honestly). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That was a week ago. You need an oil change, tinman. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

For Anne Gregory

Glad you enjoyed the reference to Yeats. His collected poetry is worth reading if you haven't read it. The short (1 page or less) poems after #98 in the collected poems are best. μηδείς (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I might. But that "damn" was for your answer. You sort of suckerpunched that guy. What is a "are you serious? attitude", anyway? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

CM Punk in WMXXX

eh... according to PWTorch editor Wade Keller, one reason why Bryan's going to main-event WM is because Punk walked out. That's why I included his walking out in the storyline section of WM XXX. Also: PWInsider: "CM Punk’s legacy" starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

If that was explained, it'd be fine. Just on its own like that, it's odd. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Your name gave me a laugh. Thanks! Paradoctor (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I was honestly just thinking (about ten minutes ago) that I could use some sandwich. This'll do nicely. Your name reminds me of a paralyzed doctor, which isn't that funny, but you're still cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh, never noticed that. It's from one of the by-laws of time from a Heinlein story: "A Paradox May Be Paradoctored." I only learned later that this is actually a word. Paradoctor (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Cool facts. That's why this is better than a regular encyclopedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: Brock Lesnar

Just wanted to say that your edit summaries regarding the streak made me laugh. Poor Taker. JJARichardson (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Warrior Star

Check out my tribute re-design of the Wiki Warrior Star on your user page...I think you'd appreciate it.

Vjmlhds (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Good job! Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Just heard he died. Damn. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Open SPI assistance request

Hey there. I have an open SPI case against the editor that's been actively changing the Results section of WrestleMania articles to remove the numbers from "Pre-show" and etc. Wondering if you could toss in your two cents, too. Thanks! Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Person512 Antoshi ☏ ★ 23:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Reptile, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. HCA (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Only one per year. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Information pertaining to the "Death" section of recently deceased public figure/professional wrestler, Warrior aka Ultimate Warrior aka James Hellwig". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 22:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Silly bot. I've already commented there. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

File:The Ultimate Warrior.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Ultimate Warrior.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 06:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Some Bubble Tea For You!

For your help @ Wiki Reference Desk..! Joseph 03:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Mmmm...bubbles. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Russell Targ

The list of articles you re added to the article Russell Targ was poorly formed, a better formatted version of this list is on the talk page. If you think some of these articles should be included in the list please provide your input on the talk page at Talk:Russell Targ#WP:UNDUE and list of works. Don't re add content that has been removed without discussion and consensus. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't really care too much. I was just helping an old man on the Help Desk who was wondering where they went. I was aware of some sort of controversy, but not the details. Still not really seeing the problem. Anyway, not my business. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for helping out at the Help Desk and showing kindness to concerned editors. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

...and you have just followed him to the BLP noticeboard and made the same condescending comment to him. I don't care how "cool" you think pseudoscience is. Saying that to an eminent scientist is likely to make them apoplectic. That is in no way helping him to resolve his problem. The fact is, we can't resolve it because it was not Wikipedia that labelled his work pseudoscience, but that is no reason to be disrespectful—"helping an old man" is a demeaning comment, not to say an ageist one. SpinningSpark 19:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't "follow" him there, I "noticed" him there. You're right about it sounding different to him, but it would be easier for him to accept the label remote viewing has received than fight it. If I'd "helped a young man", would that be agist? He said himself his eyes were failing and it made his citing labourious. Figured the answer that required much less typing and arguing would be best.

If you'd rather encourage his futile battle, be my guest. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I see you closed his Help Desk question. Maybe we're on the same page, as far as futility goes? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

We are not even close to being on the same page. SpinningSpark 09:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

We're on the same talk page, at least. Doesn't matter. I'm done with the whole issue. Science, pseudoscience..."remote viewing" is going to carry whatever connotation to whomever, regardless of the next line. If I see you around, I hope we agree on something. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Pink money and red lines

I appreciate what you responded in your message just now on my User talk page. I'm at the office and will be solidly busy till late this evening, though meanwhile am thinking of what I'll write in reply at my first opportunity. -- Sincere thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Say nothing, and I'll try to say less potentially offensive things in the future. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

But yeah, if you want to, feel free. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

What's in a name?

Hey InedibleHulk, you recently referred to me as 'the appropriately named Mantis' -- in what way do you see my moniker as appropriate? I mean, I rarely wait around on a plant until I can catch a juicy cricket... I'm sure no offense was implied or inferred, but now I'm just curious :) SemanticMantis (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It was the semantic part, appropriate in that context of you deeming my words "opaque". Good word for it, thanks. Not so much the mantis part, but I do picture you as a mostly human hybrid. Even if that's true, your kind are cool with me. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying! SemanticMantis (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Could I be bored?

Okay, which of these is more groan-inducing?

1. When I first heard of Ludvig Borga, my response was "Yeah, that's the old guy from Denmark who plays the piano. See him in commercials all night long on some channels". (True story, BTW);
2. The story of how Bret Hart's cousin Corey convinced him to begin wearing his sunglasses at night;
3. Bill Mercer, age 90, hosting Low Class Championship Wrestling, coming to you from the concrete pit where the World Famous Sportatorium used to stand, "right here in beautiful downtown Dallas, Texas". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

And, since you remarked about that El-P lyric before it was censored: one of his earliest tracks, "Bad Touch Example", features a spoken interlude between verses which reveals a vocabulary encompassing not only wrestling lingo, but also Ric Flair promos. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Radio star

Now that I know you may be a Canadian celebrity I feel obliged to try and guess who you are! I'm sure you'd love that...so I'll restrain myself... Adam Bishop (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You can guess, but I won't confirm or deny anything. Except that I'm not Bryan Adams. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll bite. Are you Nardwuar the Human Serviette, perchance? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh God, I hope not. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

That was five days ago. I think you need an oil change. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Policeman

Two things. First, I'm not sure that "policeman" is the preferred term for that. Second, at least sources can be found which describe Gene LeBell as such, but there's been controversy with that article amongst MMA fanboys for years, to the point where his role in professional wrestling has taken a backseat. Speaking of that, I watched Rousey-Tate 2 about six months ago. I pointed out LeBell to the guy I was talking to and his response was "Judo Gene? I thought his name was Judo Charlie!" That may give an indication of how well known he really is in the MMA world, versus how he's portrayed on here. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It sounded a bit weird to me, too. But that's how the Torch sees it. Judo Gene may not get the recognition he deserves, but compared to Flavio Meier, he's something like Roddy Piper famous. Yet, his student/wife will play the recalcitrant tonight and defy the promoter's will. He'll have his article soon enough, and Rousey will get along fine, already being something like Roddy Piper famous.

Anyway, I just clipped him (and the rest) because they were examples. A few start popping up, before you know it, we've got a bona fide farm again. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Weird how the Tate-Rousey angle has its own article, too. Thanks for sharing. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

That was a particularly weird day in my life. Since a large part of it involved hanging out with a federal informant who name-dropped a pair of state senators as mutual friends, it's probably best that I leave further details off of such a public place as this. Besides, if I give away everything on here, no one will buy the book. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a damn fine chapter. Drop me an Amazon link when it's out. Or wherever books are sold, by then.

Poor Alexis played the role of Special Delivery Jones last night, then turned into George Steele postfight. Quite sad. Guess I'm not so psychic. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Continuing Kal Rudman discussion here...

...seeing as how this may be getting too off-topic to the original subject or to the project talk page in general. First off, the title of that video reminds me of the clip where Lance Russell and Dave Brown were purported to have stepped away to go smoke a bowl during the commercial break. You know, this one. "Space Mountain will be closed for repairs" is an absolute classic line from Hawk. There's another classic Hawk tagline which has never gotten its due, mainly because it came from their first All Japan promo: "All about good for us. All about BAAAAAD for you".

Modern-day fans seem to find it hard to believe that things were much different with the WWF and Vince during the early 1980s. While he was scheming behind the scenes to take over the business (wrestling historian Tom Burke stated many years ago that it began as early as 1972/3), this was still an era when promotions worked with each other. For example, McMahon made quite a number of appearances on Portland Wrestling, doing promos with Buddy Rose and The Grand Wizard when Rose was main-eventing against Backlund in the WWF and going back to Oregon to wrestle one-offs against Flair and Piper. Another oddity I rediscovered: probably long forgotten is that USA Network actually began as a D.C. version of the MSG Network. Before the WWF had regular weekly programming on USA, they first appeared as part of Madison Square Garden Presents and airing house shows from the Capital Centre. I vaguely recall that he hired away Rich Landrum from Crockett to work the Cap Centre broadcasts, long before he started hiring away others en masse. Anyway, long, long ago, I watched a tape of an MSG show from early 1981, which also aired on USA as part of MSG Presents. Having found a copy of YouTube, I checked it out again. Lo and behold, not only was Yoshiaki Yatsu in the opening match, but Vince actually talked him up as Japan's greatest amateur wrestler, who turned pro due to Japan's participation in the 1980 Olympic boycott. That, in retrospect, seemed weird. Everywhere else I've come across him from his early days in the US, he was simply billed as another Hiro Matsuda protege. If he was in Memphis, he would have been another Tojo Yamamoto protege, just like Onita and a number of others.

There's lots of historical revisionism in that Hogan DVD. The weirdest, though: they include a house show match from Detroit in 1986, which was live-announced by Ken Resnick and Jack Reynolds. There are many gaps in the commentary track, though. George Cannon is seated next to Resnick and Reynolds, but it's unclear whether he's actually part of the announce team or just some random "official". Of course, the Detroit fans know full well who he is anyway. Before the match begins, a fan dumps his soda on Cannon. Yep, very obvious gap in the commentary of some duration, where it appears that Resnick and Reynolds are talking about it at length. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson. You were right about the USA/MSG thing being forgotten. I don't think I ever knew. Cool stuff. Definitely heard Hawk use that "good for us" line in America, but maybe without the "all about". Nice to hear a Japanese star getting credit from time to time. To hear Monsoon and Hayes call any of the "Devils of Japan" matches, you'd think Bull Nakano's single greatest achievement was finding a partner uglier than herself. And to hear Vince call any Jumping Bomb Angel match, you'd swear Norio Honaga and Kazuo Yamazaki were pretty talented chicks.

You probably know Cannon had a "Superstars of Wrestling" well before the famous one, but have you seen the Masked Superstar of Wrestling? Probably some other stuff on that channel you'd like, if you hadn't noticed it. Good variety of old school.

Anyway, I'm off to watch that Hogan collection. Thanks for the tip. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

(With all due apologies to John Cleese)

"Busta Rhymes is like Hacksaw Jim Duggan, been fucking" – from the remix of "Simon Says" by Pharoahe Monch. From what I've read, this isn't exactly the only hip-hop song which mentions Duggan. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Duggan sucks. Always has, always will. But still, interesting factoid. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• meaningful phrases in results; clicking the phrase adds it to or excludes it from the search query).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

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

CM Punk

added a link pointing to Money in the Bank

Matt Osborne

added a link pointing to George Wells

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Paul Wayne

Per WP:V, even if true, the BFI site doesn't say birth month and day. So I removed them, and left year intact. I haven't contacted the subject yet, but, given his age, I wonder how often he spends time on internet. --George Ho (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I figured it was harmless enough to "ignore all rules" in this case, especially since there's no opposing claim (say, for July 13). Just a choice between possibly wrong and certainly vague. But if you'd rather follow this one, that's fine.

Plenty of old people like the Internet. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mario Barletta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Wayback Machine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Either's good, this time. If people want to think I found that article in a different dimension within an old cartoon, let them. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

encore

Hello, I clicked on your name randomly. Do you have chance to reply to my Topic about (Law & Order episode: Encore) on the Entertainment Wikipedia Website?(73.48.225.235 (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)).

There's no random with people. You mean "arbitrarily". Anyway, that's a Language Desk issue. I'll check out your question, but I've rarely seen that show, probably not that episode. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The recap probably didn't explain if Jack considered the Possibility that (Dobson, Giabone, & Cruz) are involved in Emily's murder. I posted my Old Theory, so do you have a chance to Read my Old Theory today? I hope that You don't Mind emailing me at ralphaelturtle@yahoo.com (73.48.225.235 (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)).

Like I said, I don't watch Law & Order. I don't know who any of the people in your theory are and the huge block of text is hard to read. I don't want to email you. Here are the episode's writers. Track them down to find out what any character considered. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, you're pissing me off because how do you not know the people in my theory? According to my theory, that's how I thought the Episode was going to end, so please read my Theory & please tell me if It would Make sense for the Episode to End just like That?(73.48.225.235 (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)).

It would make sense for this conversation to end just like that. I don't have a theory on it. Just the way it is. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Punk

This is enought? Punk was asked "will see you back in a ring"? and he answere "no, never". [3] The video was named "I'm never going back to WWE", but the reported said will se you back in a ring, without mention WWE. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Its A Fucking StoryLine he is not retired

Thanks for finding the relevant section, but sign your fucking comments and find some fucking sources. Also, be goddamned civil, please. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Date links in your signature

Hello Hulk: I see you've set up your signature to include internal links to dates and years. I can't figure out what is the purpose of such links. They simply add to the "what links here" listings for 2014 and the particular dates. As a result, the various talk pages you've posted on get linked to the dates and years. This might be considered disruptive linking per signature guidelines. (But I do not see a prohibition for such links in particular.) Something for you to consider. – S. Rich (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The purpose is simply to make these links more accessible. Many people go their whole day without realizing which notable anniversaries are occuring. That's fine, to each their own. I don't want to force them on people, but subtly hinting doesn't hurt. The second main reason is I've always found the "22 July" format ridiculously backwards. I've tried various other suggestions to remedy this, but nothing seems to work without Javascript (which I'm not fond of using).

Not sure I see the problem with making "What Links Here", but a couple of other editors have told me about problems with archiving bots, and generally confusing them. The bots seem to have evolved past that, and while I don't want to confuse people with the format, I also don't want to be confused myself by theirs. In a nutshell, I've considered it each time (four now), and always conclude that the pros outweigh the cons. Hope you don't personally mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't see how a link would help anyone with anniversaries by seeing the link near your signature. How about going to your Preferences page, and the Appearances tab. It gives several options, including the MDY format you prefer. I really don't know if the linking is "disruptive" or not. But I thought you might know and/or ought to consider this. (I may make an inquiry on the Signature talk page to see if anyone really knows.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If they see it, they might click it. If they don't see it, they can't. That Preferences thing is one of those I tried. Simply didn't work. If something is disruptive, I think disruption should be apparent. So I don't think this is. If you want to ask for another opinion, I'll consider that one, too. But I don't want to change. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Silly bot. Should have said Wikipedia appreciates my help. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Occupational Health Psychology

Hi InedibleHulk. Just letting you know iss246 blanked your sound edit in the lead. I have taken the liberty of restoring it for you as a matter of principle. But I fear iss246 or psyc12 will just delete it again. That is why I walked from this biased mess of an article, 4 months ago so I could focus on a lot of other articles, which I have been doing, rather than get 'caught up again' with these 2 editors. I am a pretty determined bugger and I strongly believe that this article needs to be either improved drastically or deleted, but I'm sick of trying to get some NPOV and worldwide view into this damned coatrack article. If you feel that your edit is worth more than a quick delete by iss246, please restore. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I can be pretty determined and annoyed about stuff I care about here, too, so I understand your beef. But this topic doesn't really interest me enough to keep up the fight (at least not on your level). I've put another two cents into the talk machine, and rephrased the lead a bit. Might have a round or two left in me, but I'll be bowing out soon.

Good luck, and try to keep a cool head. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for at least standing your ground on your contribution. Will be interested if iss246 or psyc12 delete it again though. This reference: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ohp/ clearly shows that NIOSH promotes OHP in the US, as you say. The source actually says NIOSH takes an active interest in promoting....." Not sure why you got so much opposition for simply stating the bleeding obvious? This OHP topic from what I can see, has been a very controversial one since 2007. Way before my entry into the world of Wikipedia. And given my interest in a lot of different articles relating to topics in medicine, management, law, psychology and others I may also leave again soon, rather than get entangled further. Not worth it to me. But that unfortunately leaves a very biased article in the Wikipedia space?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There are many others like it, with less determined protectors. Sometimes people who create articles feel like they own them. It's not cool, but requires an equal or greater persistence to liberate them. In a case like this, I weigh the benefits against the detriments. This isn't a high-traffic article, and the bias isn't seriously harmful to the readers who do find it. Those seriously interested in a topic will often read the talk page and follow links as well, and there they'll learn of what happened here, and how NIOSH is central. Those who aren't seriously interested won't care. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the topics OHP say they cover like stress in the workplace are huge societal issues. My issue is that the authors all appear to be extremely unified in protecting this article and maintaining their version (and have admitted friendships outside of Wikipedia). My persistence in trying to achieve some NPOV, has unfortunately landed me in direct conflict with them, and often have felt very much ganged up on, and worse, these conflicts have reflected poorly on me at times, by outside editors. That's why I walked 4 or 5 months ago and focused on editing other articles. I think (hope) at least we are getting somewhere in the last couple of days. By 'shining a light' on what's going on here, will hopefully attract some other independent editors and eyes on the article. Thanks for your 'straight up' comments and seeing through the mud.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Just letting you know, your contribution was predictably and unceremoniously blanked again by iss246, as well as the correct NPOV dispute and other correct tags. Your call though.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. It seems to still be there. Only deleted my correct tags and contribution. As usual I'm their 'target.'Mrm7171 (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm getting hit, too. Of course, that could be because I'm standing next to you. We should split up. I have at least nine other Wikibattles of varying importance, and a few construction plans I've been putting off.

Fight the good fight, but remember, repeating yourself (especially in bold) gets tedious and tiring, in a WP:TLDR way. Keep it short and to the point, Bruce Lee style. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

David Otunga Wikipedia

Hi, I have noticed that there is an IP address that keeps stating that he was released from the WWE. I cannot find a source that states that. I have requested a semi-protection for the page. What should I do? Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why you're asking me, but yeah, semi-protection is good for cases like those. Otunga's still a Superstar, as far as WWE is concerned. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked because you have made several edits to WWE superstars. Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Just going through and cleaning some Wikilinks. I haven't personally seen Mr. Otunga in about two years. I hope he's OK. Was a hardcore WWF/E fan for twenty-odd years, but something went terribly wrong in 2008. Since then, if they're not on the PPVs, I have to be reminded they exist. Sorry, Tyson Kidd. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand. Sometimes I'm not enthralled with WWE either. I realize they let go of 7% - 10% of their workforce, although there has been no mention of Otunga. He was, however, recently seen on General Hospital as himself. Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't read too much into that. There's more TV in general than ever, so more WWE guys are branching over. In Otunga's case, he became famous for his acting connections, so it makes more sense. But yeah, he sure doesn't seem busy in the ring, even if he's technically under contract. Probably best if they did let him go, but Wikipedia can't make those decisions. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh I hear ya. More cable stations than ever before. More and more cable stations are making new programming. Yeah, he did marry Jennifer Hudson and have a kid with her. I agree, it doesn't make sense to not show someone when they are on contract, yet they do that with The Undertaker, The Rock, and Brock Lesnar. Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Those guys are in a different boat, though. They've put the work in and earned their big-money, specific date contracts. I'm not sure what details are in Otunga's contract, but it seems likely he was supposed to do more, and for whatever reason, he's just sitting on whatever bare minimum was guaranteed. He can thank The Outsiders for everyone getting those now. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It could be because his wife does not like him wrestling. I just hope the page gets protected. Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that's true for every wrestler's wife, to an extent. If the page isn't protected, and you have it on your watchlist, you can simply revert the OP. You don't have to worry about WP:3RR, since you're removing unsourced, potentially defamatory material from a BLP. Bit of a hassle, but not huge, especially if you use brief (or no) edit summaries. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you help me please on Wikipedia

I have done so many violations on it that I need help fixing my mistakes. Venustar84 (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No promises, but maybe. What's up? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you wanna be my mentor? People are kinda mad because I'm not suppose to create catgroies. Mayb e you could speak on my behalf........... Venustar84 (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not a mentor, that's a lawyer. I'm afraid I can't help. If I can mentor you, I'd advise just not creating categories or articles on whatever topic you're banned from (I only glanced at your talk page). If people are mad, they probably told you why. Think of it from their perspective for a bit, and when you see their problem, you can work around it. Compromise isn't a dirty word.

I also won't create anything for you, regardless of ethics. I just don't like creating things. I've had a monkey in my sandbox forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually I'm wondering if you what categories are suitable to create and not suitable to create. I'm not banned yet you see; I just can't create categories and I kinda have mental health issues..... Venustar84 (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Joke on the Reference Desk

Hello. I'm sure it was only intended as a joke, with no malicious intent whatsoever, but please could you consider not making this sort of joke on Wikipedia? I'm only asking you to think about it. While I'm sure that it's the sort of joke you make without thinking twice in real life, it's also the sort of joke that would have made a younger version of myself feel unwelcome and unsafe.

As a rule of thumb, maybe imagine potential readers of the reference desks, including children of both genders. We do not censor ourselves, but we also shouldn't be treating it as some sort of clubhouse.

I hope you will consider this. Thanks for reading. Skittle (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for any offense. I had thought twice (and Wikipedia is also real life). In the context of a "spiders in the bedroom" question, I figured it worked on two levels. One was a wholesome message of spider tolerance, that there's no problem with having one on your bed. They're generally harmless, and children (or adults) shouldn't be afraid to share a bed with them, in the way they might sleep with a pet dog or cat.

The more adult layer requires a bit of adult knowledge. If a kid gets the gist of it, they already know. I'd refrain from explicitly stating "I want to have sex with this monster." That's not veiled, and hasn't a grain of humour or truth.

I do often hold back on jokes I figure are generally offensive, without redeeming qualities, but if I'd consider everybody, I'd be lost for words. There's always someone to potentially offend. I can promise I won't make that particular joke again.

Thanks for speaking your mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Disappearance of Erica Parsons

I knew the minute I saw that it wasn't acceptable for Wikipedia. And yet I felt some sort of "Official" site was needed. I decided to go for it and it lasted longer than I thought it would. Is there in fact an acceptable official site in a case like this?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 13:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure, but I doubt it. There's some concern at the BLP noticeboard that the whole article might not be acceptable. That's where I first heard of the case. It does seem a bit too personal and local for a global encyclopedia. Not a lot of facts, mostly cited accusation and speculation. You may want to weigh in there first. It'd be a waste of time to work on something if it won't be there long. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I had my doubts she was notable, but the story was covered in the London Daily Mail and they were on Dr. Phil.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The Mail touched it because it was on Dr. Phil, it seems. Otherwise, all Salisbury and Charlotte papers. The show alone isn't much to base wider significance on. Decent ratings, but it's had 2,142 episodes now. Many guests over the 12 years. Only four "notable episodes" are mentioned in its article. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That's true. I had my doubts when I couldn't find sources outside the state. Anyway, I looked at what you mentioned. I don't think I did anything other than state facts as they were presented in the sources.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it wasn't your fault. The well-attributed facts are simply about other people's claims, counter claims and later-amended claims. The story itself is inherently rather toxic to an encyclopedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I see. Well, until yesterday no one objected in the two weeks it was there, and I saw that as acceptance. Still, the newspapers and TV stations are much harder on these people. You might say they've already been convicted in the press.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That's one reason some editors stand so firmly by WP:NOTNEWS. There's a sleaziness to news that reporters can justify by their need to put food on the table (or college for the editor's kids or a new yacht for the publisher's), and their audience's continual need for "newsworthy" stories. When unpaid volunteers recycle those rushed stories for inclusion in a timeless (and theoretically authoritative) thing like a encyclopedia, that context is lost. There's a place for everything. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand that. It has been a year since the story became news, although the recent developments may make it news again. There are so many of these cases and Wikipedia doesn't even mention them. I thought a place could be found for a sentence or two about this one. Well, let's see how it goes. The current accusation suggests they collected checks once she was missing, which I didn't even bother with. The first thing I saw was that they claimed the daughter wasn't with them at that time, but she came back, or so they said. That's enough for a charge but certainly not all the charges they're facing. I chose not to get that detailed since they'd look bad. Just simple facts.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't mention them because there are so many of them. Missing children are extremely common, especially those taken by their families, and there's not a family on the planet without family secrets. One-for-one, they're all very significant. But in the big picture, they're mundane and repetitive. In the local community, they're pretty important, and the local papers play their role pretty well.

This article is pretty harmless, in my personal opinion, so I won't take a "professional" side in whether it stays or goes. You put good work into it, in any case. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought I did. I made an effort to just state facts, though what was said about the polygraph--that can be a borderline violation of WP:BLP. I at least added that an FBI agent said it, but it's up to the individual to say, "Does this mean he's guilty or did they embarrass the poor man on national TV?" The fact that I used a UK source only means that's the first one I found outside the state, and I was not at the library where I can access my sources, but I realized I had switched their names because both names could be male or female!— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's in your capable hands now. Just try not to get too attached to it, because I can't speak for the other guys at the board. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all you said. I never really expected it to last.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Shield use

You seem to have removed your recent comment about shield use before I could add this image indicating how shields can be used by people who wish to defend themselves. Just thought you might appreciate the contrast... SemanticMantis (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I do. Did already, but still do, too.

Appearances are not deceiving, as far as the disappearance goes. I'd already forgotten I wasn't getting involved, and then to top it off, that source only alluded to kettling, didn't say they were at it again this time. Hulk cannot tell a lie! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm nobody...

...but I appreciate your measured and thoughtful responses to the inquiries that have been placed here. I'm of the opinion that the editor in the trenches does not get the credit they're due. It's folks like you (to employ a local colloquialism) that keep this project honest and purposeful. I know nothing of the subject which you show some knowledge and I'm glad that we have editors that are capable of adding or deleting content as the situation requires. Thank you for offering your time and effort. Regards Tiderolls 08:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Hadn't thought of it as a trench or myself as a folk before. But yeah, also glad we have such a variety of knowledgable people. Sometimes it's amazing how many articles we have, had and will have. We're a mixed bag of unpaid nuts, but we've all collectively done a fine job. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Signature

Didn't your signature used to be green? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No, already close enough to trademark infringement. I wouldn't like Marvel Comics when they're angry. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Please don't berate other editors as you did here. - MrX 14:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a bit unpleasant. I'll be nicer. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Boston Marathon bombings

See this discussion about calling the Boston Marathon bombings terrorism or not. It currently seems like there is WP:EDITWARRING going on and you should be aware of WP:3RR. Please leave the article as it was and take your points to the talk page build consensus and change according to that consensus. XFEM Skier (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, hadn't noticed the discussion. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WWE US title belt.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. Someone has found a better angled shot for the article. Assuming that one won't be soon deleted (fair assumption?), mine isn't needed. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Barbie?

Wtf made you think I want a barbie? She looks like a freak, kind of disgusting too. Money is tight (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

She doesn't seem to have pores, freckles or hair (aside from her head). Smooth like plastic or an airbrushed picture. Thought those might be the imperfections you found unappealing up close, in light. Does Kristen Wiig do anything for you? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No not the least bit attractive. Does https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFDR6OwFcn4 look fake to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Money is tight (talk • contribs) 03:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not particularly, though in real life, she'd look less sharp against a less blurry background. Is she what you'd call attractive? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not as good as http://imgur.com/lWA318O but still pulse poundingly attractive. And it's not just me, look at the comments in that video please. If you dont think she's hot you're not normal Money is tight (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not normal, but I didn't say she wasn't hot. Just wondering about you. That face is out there in reality, somewhere, even if not on her. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Farscape

If you follow sci-fi, this is probably the best non-cgi show since the original Star TRek, most of the work is done with Henson's puppets.

I am not sure what is available simply on broadcast TV, since the parent company went bankrupt and lost the rights, and this led to a huge shakeup at scyfy.

Some of the early episodes are iffy until they get their sea legs, but DNA Mad Scientist (here, the making of) and Bone to Be Wild (here, a prevview) show the quality of it. The peacekeeper wars are a finale after the show was cancelled, so don't watch those first. μηδείς (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty far from a sci-fi guy. Haven't even watched a single Star Wars or Trek movie, and only a handful of The Next Generation episodes. More a disinterest than a hatred, though, and every genre has the potential for good (Futurama's sci-fi, I guess). Muppets (and their ilk) are generally cool, so I'll check it out.

Haven't had satellite TV since the Great Nagravision Screwjob of '09, or even the channels guaranteed to me by law since those digital folks made my ball of tinfoil and coax cable obsolete. Non-fiction science also sometimes sucks, but it gave us Tubeplus, and that seems to have the whole series. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that route will work. Episode 2 is boring, but will help ground you in the characters, otherwise skip it. I'd skip episode 3 entirely. Episodes 5 and 8 are a bit too mystical/nonsense for my taste, but after those caveats it is a great run. Characters tend to die and change alliances, which also makes it less boring that your run-of-the mill space opera. The characterizations tend to be quite good, and effects after the two episodes I showed were incredible. My Dad at 65 used to request the show when it ran originally, and he hates sci-fi. μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

First things first, I'm watching the episode you initially warned me against. Then, we'll see. Characters dying and changing alliances is well and good. Why I like wrestling and Game of Thrones. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

And by "first things first", I mean I'm getting around to it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

How far along are you? If you want some muppeteering without all the backstory just think "Lost in Space" where they are all escaped alien prisoners, John Crichton the only human, Aeryn Sun a race genetically modified as warriors from humans without knowledge of earth" a "Peace Keeper", and watch DNA Mad Scientist and Bad to the Bone. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oops (...regarding Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California page)

Sorry InedibleHulk, I think what happened was I copied and pasted my previous reply from the NPOV noticeboard to reply to Mattand to save time as he posted same objection both places. I must have accidentally copied part of your reply as well. Thank you for deleting that. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly sure how you managed that, seeing how mine was under yours to start. But whatever. All good. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Saw it there while editing & assumed it was a recent edit I missed, so moved my reply under it. Sorry. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Honest mistake. Don't be sorry, just be more careful. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mike Dalton (wrestler)#Requested move (again)

You were previously involved in prior related discussions. Join in to discuss again. --George Ho (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Your recent AIV report

Hi, Hulk. I fully sympathise with you, and I can see how frustrating the situation must be, but at present I think we are still at the stage of patiently explaining what the problems are, and making it clear that a block may come, rather than actually blocking. (You may see more of my opinions on the matter at AIV and on the editor's talk page.) However, if the problems continue, I will be willing to consider blocking, so do feel welcome to contact me on my talk page if necessary. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe a bit early. Had to try though, or my warning would've seemed empty. And the warning would have seemed unneeded without the prior explanations. Whether he's blocked or stops on his own is just the same to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Farnworth's

Catchphrase, "Good news, everybody"? μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably. But who says I was trying to be clever? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Move request for 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa

FYI, a move of 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa has been formally requested. I'd invite you to submit your comments. --Natural R_X 17:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Cretan Bull

Not fair to withdraw Ref desk Question! ;)

Maybe the bull was still horny for her? ;) Bull psychology Robert Graves' two-volume The Greek Myths is always enlightening on such questions, concisely offering summaries and classical references to many variations of stories too often known from only a few canonical sources, at best. His brief chapter endnotes include primary sources (cited by author, book, chapter &/or verse) for easy confirmation on Perseus Project and his own historical/anthropological speculations on possible rationales for these variations (to be taken with a note of caution, naturally). A great read, in any case - hope it helps you answer your question; it always helps pass the time. (Be careful when buying: 2-volume Penguin paperback set has mandatory endnotes; one-volume remainder edition does not; haven't seen new comics format - and don't want to.) Robert Graves, The Greek Myths, volume 1, c.88, "Minos and His Brothers" -- Paulscrawl (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have those books somewhere. My mom bought them for me as a kid. A little confusing back then, reread them as a teenager. Can't remember that part offhand, but I'll take a look for them. Thanks for the reminder! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I sort of read over that Perseus Project part without comprehending (or clicking) it. Now that I have, that's also pretty cool. Thanks again! (And have a pleasant Halloween.) InedibleHulk (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hello,

I'm looking for volunteers to help me with the followings:

1. Combine the paragraphs by amending into one.
2. Rewrite the paragraphs by combining into one.

Can you help me with anyone of them?

(Russell.mo (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC))

Possibly. What's up? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I need article(s) paragraphs to be combined into one by amending them. Currently I’m gathering the information, learning at the same time, I am just finding it difficult to combine paragraphs for amendments. Plus its wasting a lot of time when I should be using this time to actually write the story appropriately which is mixing with the book. Once the combining is done some of the selected bits that will go with the book need to be re-written. I’ll be grateful with whatever you’ll be happy to help with. Currently I have someone volunteered to help me, but she is way to slow, slower than me... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC))

Well, whenever you've gathered it up, just leave it on my desk (this thing). Probably going to bed soon, though. In general, ideas shouldn't be combined into a single paragraph. When they are, it's usually for rhetorical reasons, and rhetoric generally doesn't work best for Wikipedia.

Sorry if I'm forgetting something, but what's the book about? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I would've mentioned it to you somewhere private, I can't find your 'email this user' link in the left pane's 'tools' tab. There is no guarantee that the book will sell vastly. Analysement proves that it won't... I'm just trying to make my life useful while I'm stuck in a rut... If it does, which is unlikely, I will be very happy...

Don't mind me asking, I don't understand what you mean by "rhetorical reasons generally doesn't work best for Wikipedia". I'm planning to write a book...

Anyways, after reading this message of yours, I begun, acquired a second thought, maybe I should do what I recalled; what you mentioned some time ago. Maybe I should allow people to 'Google' things up... I really don't know what I'm doing to be honest, all I know that I need volunteers who can help me out of their good will, with some bits and bobs for the book. So far I found two, including yourself. Thank you for your kind interest.

(Russell.mo (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC))

No, I don't have a Wikipedia e-mail. Everything I do here is under one name and public.

I thought you meant you needed some Wiki articles amended so you'd have more time for a book about a related topic. So nevermind that rhetoric bit. It's definitely OK in books.

Book publishing is a strange business. Some people spend many years writing many things, and never make enough to eat. Others crap something out in a month and make enough for a mansion (and some of those lose the mansion a year later). Most are somewhere in between, constantly working fairly hard to be fairly rewarded. No way to know which you'll be unless you try. Don't be afraid to follow your gut, and try not be discouraged, by the rut you're in or the ruts you'll get into. The whole point of success is getting out of them, and if you tell yourself it's unlikely, you'll believe it more than you believe anyone else telling you it's likely.

I don't know what you're doing either, but if you keep doing the best you can to get better at it, the only outcome is the best possible one. If you give up, you're guaranteed to fail. If you half-ass it, you might do alright.

If you want more specific advice, "analysement" isn't a word. "Analysis" is. But, many authors have coined new words and become famous for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I do need WP articles amended, so that I can relate/insert it in a book.

I know what you mean about the book publishing, I'm really broke man, I'm just trying to make my time useful. I'm in a third world country and been here for a few years now, I can't go back to my place because I don't have money. Someone is taking care of me here, but I think it's getting to him... I've spend over two years, writing 25 pages too, I can't hack it anymore. God has done a lot for me, I can't explain the powers and the love he possesses, beyond imagination! I always wonder all the reasons why He is called the mighty king. I would've been in the street now, if it wasn't for Him, Who's taking care of me... I am only having faith that this book will at least do some trick, all because I believe in God almighty. I use to be an analyst (I somehow managed to get in to it... due to the massive redundancies in years back, I have/am suffering...), I only believe in 'yes' or 'no', it is only because of God (who made impossible things possible for me) I believe in the word 'maybe'. I don't take chance on 'maybe's for life's sake... I don't believe in the word 'accident' man, now I believe a tiny bit because of God...

Thanks for correcting my English again. This is one thing I'll always have problem with.

I'll get in touch with you soon!

O: ]

(Russell.mo (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC))

Love your handle

A historian will one day make a list of quintessential user names for Wikipedia and yours will be on it. However, you may be sued first by several Usanian food chains Captainbeefart (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Thought I said that yesterday. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Off topic

Every question posted at Reference Desk, etc., is not an invitation for you to chat with anybody who will listen about whatever tangent-off-of-tangent comes to mind. Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Whatever you're smoking, either give me some or keep it on topic, please. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to a hoot, but I don't think my Internet's fast enough for that.

Not sure what makes you think I'm here to chat, though. As far as I can tell, I'm mostly on-point. When I'm not, it's usually because the question's been answered. There are probably times when some people can't see my point, but that's not exactly my fault. Anything in particular seem overly chatty to you? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well in that section you were off topic beginning with your first post. The question was about the word for fear of snow, and you were already talking about the word for killing snow, because you hate snow. Wtf? That was the first tangent of a chain of tangents. Given another few hours, the chain could have been extended until you were talking about Amelia Earhart's disappearance ... quite justifiably, in your opinion, because one could follow the chain back to the word for fear of snow. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There, the question was answered. Thanks, by the way. A logical enough follow-up on how to describe fearing something seemed to be how to describe killing it. In a few hours, it might have gotten around to Earhart, if that's where it happened to lead. As long as we aren't spreading blatant lies and providing references, no harm in some further reading. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

: ]

Thank you for helping.

(Russell.mo (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC))

I forget what I did, but you're welcome. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Why aren't domesticated cats afraid of dogs?

I removed "fat spoiled pussies" from pointing to Bob Sapp. I appreciate the attempt at humour (and like the analogy, in general), and despise rd nannying, but we really shouldn't be linking insults to Wikipedia Bio pages. I doubt this actually falls under BLP stuff, but it does seem sketchy and something that I'm sure isn't encouraged, or appreciated, in general - Apologies for modifying your comment. Also, the youtube link is down for copyright infringement (I didn't alter it, but am simply letting you know). :-) Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Location

Yes I did. I actually relocated this post into my 'notebook' page, I don't think you were notified. I've deleted now after receiving your reply. Thanks for replying... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC))

Yeah, I saw it. From Ontario, in case you wondered. That's about as specific as I can get. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I did, thought you would not answer, I would've asked at first. Sorry for the late reply, I forgot to check your page. Take care. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC))

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

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 a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, Vjmlhds 16:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks. I think I'll celebrate the solstice this year. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

To-do

• Archive your talk page
• Rewatch Shield vs Wyatts @ Elimination Chamber
• Get RKOed
• Review my FAC
• Run

How's that for a end-of-2014 list? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 08:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Could use an archive, yeah. Not sure if I even saw that match the first time. Probably should. I don't click Facebook links. There's a lot to read in that FAC, but maybe. Enjoy the rest of your year! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)