User talk:InedibleHulk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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, July 31, 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, August 3, 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, August 6, 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, August 6, 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, August 9, 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, August 9, 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, August 15, 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. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 03:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hope so. But my brain says no. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:15, August 22, 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 (talkcontribs) 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, August 31, 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, September 3, 2013 (UTC)

edit warring

Stop icon

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, September 4, 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, September 22, 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, October 11, 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, October 12, 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, November 2, 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, November 20, 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, November 25, 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, November 26, 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, November 29, 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, December 1, 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, December 5, 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, December 8, 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, December 8, 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, December 20, 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, December 20, 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, December 22, 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, December 31, 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be settled. Good stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, December 31, 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, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I guess I did mess that one up. Still... InedibleHulk (talk) 10:21, January 8, 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, January 10, 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, January 22, 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:

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, January 30, 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, February 1, 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, February 2, 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, February 5, 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, February 10, 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, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

specify your email

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

No. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:05, February 7, 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, February 8, 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, February 10, 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, March 5, 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, February 11, 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, February 11, 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, February 11, 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, February 11, 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, February 13, 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, February 13, 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, February 14, 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, February 14, 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, February 14, 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, February 11, 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, February 11, 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, February 14, 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, February 14, 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, February 14, 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, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Stop icon

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, February 17, 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!

Export hell seidel steiner.png 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, February 25, 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, February 25, 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, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Export hell seidel steiner.png 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, February 26, 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, February 26, 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, February 26, 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, February 26, 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, February 26, 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, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

Stop icon with clock
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)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

InedibleHulk (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


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, February 27, 2014 (UTC) 01:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

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

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
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, February 27, 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, February 27, 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, February 27, 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, February 27, 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.

Handshake icon.svg
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, February 27, 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, March 9, 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, March 12, 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, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Information icon 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, March 22, 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, March 30, 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, March 30, 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, March 31, 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, April 3, 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Cheeseburger.png Your name gave me a laugh. Thanks! wink 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, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
Huh, never noticed that. grin 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, April 6, 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, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
Just heard he died. Damn. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, April 9, 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

Stop icon 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, April 20, 2014 (UTC)







Creative Commons License