Goddamnit, she was my favourite Game of Thrones talk page character! Rest in peace, worthy adversary. Starship, I guess that makes you my new active favourite (break all the breaks you want).
InedibleHulk (
talk)
04:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Hi, SP. There is no requirement of a formal close for the consensus items on the list. Nor is further ongoing discussion sufficient to deprecated and remove any item.
SPECIFICOtalk16:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
SPECIFICO: - understood. I'm still sticking to my decision, with the reason that the material is clearly still contentious, and that editors were being threatened over it, as a reason why a formal close would be needed in this particular case. starship.paint (
exalt)01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Actually that was what made the least sense to me - easily adjusted for that concern. But the article will stabilize over time. I never thought that list was a good idea, and it was used too often as a hammer by a few editors.
SPECIFICOtalk16:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
With this Sicknick thing, I mean. Trump is gone. Wasn't that the entire goal? You've changed, man! And in my mystical mumbojumbonic new age expert opinion, all that transpired played a role in your condition. Yes, that condition. All that transpired. Nothing means nothing, yeah?
InedibleHulk (
talk)
10:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)reply
And you can point to whatever select inline citation you want, but you know which paper started the fire extinguisher fire on January 8, and when its February 12 correction was timed.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
10:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
InedibleHulk: - actually I did not know who started it, and when the correction was made. This happened months ago. Frankly the crux of the issue is
WP:V. If you want to make a claim you’ve got to cite it to a reliable source. Plus you can see here:
[1] AP had their own source.
[2] WSJ had their own source. This may have been the same source as the NYT, or it might not. So why only blame the NYT? If the other media outlets only quoted NYT I would understand blaming NYT. But this wasn’t the case. starship.paint (
exalt)00:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Apparently unwittingly, you're perpetuating the myth that disagreeing with fake news and corrupt politicians is a life-threatening lifestyle. I'm sorry you didn't know. But your ass has now called somebody, and that old man here is me.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
00:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I can't copy and paste, type like in a video game and that page is a memory hog. Anyway, I still like you and think you do fine work. If you happen to discover any room for improvement, though, I hope you seize the opportunity!
InedibleHulk (
talk)
01:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)reply
For the record (and the stalkers!), when I say "you people", it's as opposed to "those people", not comparing anyone to "my people". And that grouping's intended ideologically. Nothing ethnic, sexual or civic!
InedibleHulk (
talk)
05:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Just innocently creeping up behind you and noticed you sent a "Death of Brian Sicknick" thread to the "Trial of Derek Chauvin" archive. I didn't know that was even possible, rare example of a legit amazing move! But yeah, not entirely convinced you meant to pull it off.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
07:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)reply
One of those sequels, eh? That's unfortunate. Maybe the animated series, video game and theme park ride can still turn it into a cult classic despite audience approval.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
10:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Great, now Strange's wanking of the Chron Rod has sent the extras from Game of Thrones one decade fast into a bleak future (presented by Raymond James Stadium, WrestleMania, Army of the Dead, Peacock and the WWE Network), where even complaining about zombies is an SMH offense. Shaking my head, I mean.
Stephanie McMahon Helmsley is no longer the queen, boss' daughter or executioner in this timeline, I suspect...
InedibleHulk (
talk)
11:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Hey, John came back from the dead. But he's still a bastard, not a zombie, because he has a purpose or something. Where do today's bookers come up with this stuff? I wish a horse named Mr. Strickland shows up next, and nobody explains whether or not it's Miz' new white meat babyface form. Anyway, Andre the Giant turns 75 this Wednesday, May 19, so I hope WWE doesn't choose to keep its talent's families safe in the archives next to that "life-sized statue". Lyanna Mormont (or Nicholas?) can't bail them out this time.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
06:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Apologies for "going full circle" again, birdo, but I invoked the distant flutterings of our once-younger wings in a chaotic Arbitration Enforcement war to come, had no choice, the Lord put me here for a purpose, I swear it by the old gods and the new, blame them if anyone!
InedibleHulk (
talk)
02:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Can you link it (or them) for me? I can't remember all those characters or paste, even "typing" ain't easy. I'll owe you one (or two)!
InedibleHulk (
talk)
02:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Ok, good stuff. Sorry for creeping you so often lately, something in the air. Don't be surprised if I show up at an ungodly hour on August 12 with an unsolicited "gift" "gift or two" for you, though, just because...
InedibleHulk (
talk)
03:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I heard you like comics, so got you a subscription to
the next big thing. I also come bearing the next best thing, unfinished birthday aphorism: The only ungodly hour is. Also, I can paste now, and everything else that comes with a Ctrl/Alt/Home setup! Hope you've leveled up at least once since our last battle, too, sir.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
02:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Good to hear, editing still ain't exactly easy here, either. The buttons on this Future Shocker are small, stuck together and unlit. But cheers to realizing
desire is
poisoned fruit for the soul; weather the storm in peace, brother!
InedibleHulk (
talk)
03:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Epilogue: An hour after that odd exclamation, a switch in my head suddenly flipped and it dawned on me which animals you could even possibly mean. I'm about half sure now, though, might still be on completely different pages. You're casting aspersions on human-shaped lions...correct?
InedibleHulk (
talk)
07:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the prompt clarification and remarkable linking! Now I can sleep. Robert Robot is alright, at least by 1946 tech standards, enjoy!
InedibleHulk (
talk)
08:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Request for reopening discussion
I request that you reopen the
discussion you recently
closed on
Talk:Boogaloo movement. It had plenty of activity in the preceding days, with several ongoing threads not yet coming to a conclusion. Discussion is how we make progress and build a new consensus - going straight to an RfC is not a requirement.
Terjen (
talk)
04:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)reply
(1) Procedurally, a local consensus is not supposed to override a community consensus, when it comes to contentious matters. This is obviously a contentious matter, the previous consensus has not been rendered outdated in an uncontentious way. The previous RfC produced a community consensus, because by default, RfCs solicit the opinion of the wider community. What you are trying to build is a local consensus among active editors at the article. You cannot override the community in this way for contentious matters. The correct way to proceed is via RfC.
(2) Strategically, the discussion has been trending against your proposal. Nine editors have participated, of which only InedibleHulk has clearly supported your proposal. I'm not sure who Pelirojopajaro was agreeing with, so it's either 2-8 or 3-7 (NorthBySouthBaranof, EvergreenFir, PaleoNeonate, Guy, Bacondrum, TFD, XOR'easter). While numbers do not determine consensus, rarely do numbers lose, especially when no
WP:SPA or
WP:Meatpuppetry have occurred. Furthermore, the opposes are clearly strengthened by the successful result of the previous RfC. The discussion has been open for nearly three months. That's more than enough time for you garner support. It hasn't happened. If you want to succeed in this matter, you have to take a different route. starship.paint (
exalt)03:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Hey, "only" InedibleHulk has made some sweeping controversial changes to more important things singlehandedly before! Remember the PPV sponsorship scandal? Some people accepted it as the way of the future. But yeah, sorry Terjen, I stand by what I agreed with, just can't go on outnumbered like this. The level of opposition is simply insurmountable. That probably won't change till 2028, either. If we're still here that November, ping me! Till then, I wish you well in broader, greener fields of controversy!
InedibleHulk (
talk)
08:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)reply
@
InedibleHulk: - the situation may not be "insurmountable". What will have to be done is to find numerous RS describing boos as something else other than far-right. Maybe "right-wing", maybe "libertarian". Then propose in an RfC to change sentence to They have been variously described as either right-wing, or far-right, or libertarian. One editor was in fact compiling such sources. But I forgot who. It was some not-so-active account, or a 'new' acount. Oh a search found it. It's here:
User:Nweil/Boogaloo sources. starship.paint (
exalt)08:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I absolutely suck at source compilation, would only drag the team down, slowly. If that hill is ever getting a rock like this pushed over the top, it'll be with momentum, not vacuum. Maybe a two-man job.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
08:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Wanted to express my appreciation for trying to get them to disengage at ANI; it is a shame that they didn't follow your advice. --
JBL (
talk)
14:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)reply
On
10 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Death of Ronald Greene, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after police beat, choked,
pepper-sprayed, and dragged Ronald Greene face down while shackled, saying "that shit hurts, doesn't it?", a trooper was initially reprimanded for violating courtesy rules? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at
Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Ronald Greene. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (
here's how,
Death of Ronald Greene), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to
the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the
Did you know talk page.
Thanks for your comments on the Fauci Talk page. I work full time on BW, and I can put some effort into WP articles. Your mentoring would be appreciated. There are so many articles that need updated. I just ran across the Marc Lipsitch bio, and there is no mention of his role in the H5N1 GoF controversy. That might go to the top of the list. Please feel free to suggest work for me. I strive for a neutral POV, but more importantly, I am extremely cautious about giving the wrong people any good ideas in BW.
Charles Juvon (
talk)
14:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Great work. The inclusion of "appeared to be false" and other negative descriptions (which are varied interpretations/opinions), are now framed and attributed properly, so can be included. PME's version was in wikivoice making it an NPOV violation by editors taking one side.
This is a quick analysis, so I'm not sure. I could easily have missed something. Here are a few points:
Maybe the McClatchy/phone pinging stuff could be consolidated a bit more? It's now in three locations.
"Mueller Report states "Cohen had never traveled to Prague"" is in two places, and his false denial that he had ever been in Prague is gone (Previously: "Cohen said publicly he had never traveled to Prague, though he told Mother Jones in 2016...").
"She wrote that, if these revelations were true, "Cohen just lost his alibi. Additionally, if he lied about where he was and who he was with, his previous statements denying that he traveled to Prague are all called into question." has been shortened to "From this, Nancy LeTourneau commented that Cohen may have "lost his alibi"." The part about lying should be kept.
This part (The Washington Post reporting on Cohen in italy) isn't necessary, adds nothing, and muddles the waters, as it uncritically repeats the apparently false claim that Cohen had been in Capri: "The Washington Post in March 2019 reported that Cohen had been in Capri and Rome during his Italy trip, and that Cohen said he met Steven van Zandt in Rome.[1]" That can be left out completely.
Since Taibbi is someone who has gone to the dark side and carries Russia's water, I'm now suspicious of him. He used to be good and trustworthy. The paywall blocks me, so I can't view the necessary wording from
this source you use. We need to word that carefully, because, unless I'm mistaken, that's his wording, not the wording of the Horowitz Report, as currently implied.
@
Valjean: - (1) that's necessary, IMO. First part in the summary-intro. Second part chronologically. Third part is response to Mueller, also chronological. (2) It's not gone, it's in the next sentence? I just added "ever". Following the dossier's publication, as well as after subsequent reports, Cohen repeatedly denied having ever been to Prague (3) restored a summarized version thus doubted if he had really not travelled to Prague. (4) Disagree, perhaps WaPo has seen evidence that Cohen was in Capri. I don't see evidence that he wasn't in Capri at some point in time during the Italy trip. (5) What's the proof that Taibbi "has gone to the dark side"? Also,
Schazjmd, why are you watching my page? LOL. starship.paint (
exalt)00:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Darned if I can recall. When I started editing, I began adding all sorts of pages to my watchlist, usually of editors who said something I found interesting or worked on articles I read or who had much more experience (for learning purposes) − it could have been any of those, so please choose the one you find most flattering.
I'll remove you from my watchlist if you prefer, just say the word. The conversation just caught my attention because of the comment about Taibbi. Years ago he did a fascinating long
article for Rolling Stone on (then new) Senator Sanders, and I've enjoyed his writing ever since, but not regularly, so the idea that he'd done something to tarnish his reputation got me curious and I butted in.
Schazjmd(talk)00:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Schazjmd: - interesting, you're both older and newer than me! I suppose you're not a wrestling fan so I presume it must have been my work on American politics. No, it's alright, you can leave this on your watchlist. Thanks for sharing the Sanders article, I'll get to it when I'm free, and nice to meet you. starship.paint (
exalt)12:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks so much for actually reading and responding to my thoughts above. It's amazing how rarely that happens. I generally agree with your responses. After seeing that WaPo article, I see your point about Capri, but, IIRC, Cohen claimed van Zandt as a witness of him being in Capri, not Rome. That doesn't undermine the fact he lied about the matter, and he hasn't proven he was on Capri. Even if he was, he was definitely also in Rome, and that's easily within striking distance to Prague (or area) for a quick trip and meeting. I have lived in Europe for most of my adult life and know how travel in the Schengen Zone works. It can easily be done under the radar, and there are indications that he and one of his many phones were in the area, so I'm still suspicious. The WaPo article is interesting, and can be used for an interesting experiment. Since we know that Trump and Stone lie a lot, try reading it and assume they are lying with nearly every denial. You'd get closer to the truth than if you take them at their word.
I will share a few thoughts about Taibbi. The "truth" is in a comparison of his former and current writings. There's a huge difference. We may not agree about him, but so what. It's not that big a deal.
Taibbi used to be a very solid researcher and good writer, and I followed and enjoyed his stuff. The same could be said for the likes of Aaron Maté and Glenn Greenwald, and some would include Assange. All of them have changed rather radically toward the defense of Trump and Russia, and they all push the "Russiagate" idea that Trump is misunderstood, the victim of a witch hunt, and Russian interference, if it happened at all, wasn't a big deal. They simply are ignoring a lot of proven facts. I don't trust any of them anymore. They have changed, and I find that sad. --
Valjean (
talk)
19:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Oh, maybe your "you're" refers only to Schazjmd? I at first read "you're both" as a generic plural "you are both", as in "both of you". --
Valjean (
talk)
19:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Valjean: - I wasn't referring to you, just Schazjmd. Now, you are assuming that Cohen is lying about Capri (and we shouldn't always assume that he is). In my view, it is possible that he is just a forgetful person (and it is also possible that he lied, of course). Now, I am aware about Greenwald, less aware about Mate and Taibbi. What I am thinking that an angle that "the media was wrong" is simply that and not necessarily a defense of Trump and Russia. starship.paint (
exalt)03:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)reply
And in case you're still young enough for comics, but now too grizzled and grey for funny animal hijinks, feast yer bloody peepers on
"Dungeon of Doom"! It's got deception, skeleton power, a lady in red, a pro wrestling title and the answer to that age-old question: How a does a train engineer get to work? If you liked They Live, but thought it had too much politics, modern technology, bubblegum and runtime, these five static pages are "just the ticket", I'm afraid!
InedibleHulk (
talk)
19:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)reply
IP, you are on your way to an indefinite site block. Cut out the attacks, the POV edits without reason, and the single purpose editing. Starship is one of our most solid editors.
SPECIFICOtalk17:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The discussion will take place at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devon Nicholson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Oh no, another voice of reason leaving Wikipedia . Sorry to lose you. I plan to stick around for a while, can’t let Agent Orange’s fan club go unchecked. So long, and all the best for your career.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk)
16:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Best wishes. I presume you mean your real-life career, which definitely must come first. Hope to see you back and refreshed one day in the future. Thanks for the ping.
SPECIFICOtalk17:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)reply
I hereby lift my self-restriction on AmPol but please don’t have any expectations on me whatsoever. I do not expect the editing to be frequent, and it may not be to pages like Trump/Biden’s. starship.paint (
exalt)15:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Also, there are woods named Ypres in Southern Ontario, despite Wikipedia's reluctance to discuss such matters.
This black metal being behind all that left-handed laughter dug death,
pain, futility, loneliness,
piss, sleep and renewable energy holes, but not war itself. You want actual elaborate edutainment on the oddly factual horrors of verifiable military engagement, you want
Sabaton, seriously.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
03:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Back when radio was a thing, there was a time when all time was that song's time. It didn't care if you were sick of it. Every hour, on the hour, "Hello there...". Doo doo. Dadadada. Doo doo. Dadadada. Made me somewhat ashamed to admit I paid their label actual money for
the one with "Dammit" on it, dammit! But looking back, it was at least better than that Hoobastank nightmare. That song pretty much killed rock and roll. You know who's still got it, though?
Jack and Sally.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
10:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Starship.paint: I was looking at what to do about it beyond deletions, but, as often, got bogged in seemingly endless policies, so hoped that someone with more experience would notice my TALK note and have a fuller concept of what to do, then posted on Mrs. T's TALK ("Mel", to you). What you have done here is a remarkable presentation:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Sustained WP:COATRACK behaviour. That would take me a week. (I don't think I'm supposed to participate in discussion there, but let me know if I ought.) Thanks again for the undertaking. I'm going to keep an eye out for list pages... probably not on a lot of watch lists, so could be a haven for it.
Lindenfall (
talk)
00:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Lindenfall: - yes that took some time. Since you are already familiar with the list page where the problems arose, you should absolutely participate there if (1) you think there is something wrong, or nothing wrong, you should say so, and if (2) you think there should be sanctions, or there shouldn't be, you should say so also. You are already familiar with the list page where the problems arose. starship.paint (
exalt)01:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Lindenfall: - non-admins are free to contribute to
WP:ANI and also free to vote in discussions (I'm no admin myself). We are also free to close discussions, but we shouldn't do so if the close would result in an action typically performed by admins (block/ban/or something else covered at
WP:BADNAC). starship.paint (
exalt)01:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Hello Starship.paint. I noticed the ANI thread that you opened about this article, at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sustained WP:COATRACK behaviour. My own suggestion is that you open a new thread on the article talk page and make a list of the changes you would like to make to remove the excessive Epstein-related material. It is possible that others will support this proposal and you will be able to go ahead. If there is opposition, consider a formal
WP:RFC. Either way you should be able to get a talk page verdict on whether to remove the Epstein material.
EdJohnston (
talk)
01:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)reply
@
EdJohnston: - thank you for your suggestion! Actually, I have already removed all the offending material that I posted about in WP:ANI (and I’ve also posted on the talk page before this). My changes are no doubt supported by Ravenswing and Lindenfall (both of whom also posted on the talk page) and I doubt that any other editor (other than the offending one) would restore them. What I’m concerned with is whether the offending editor should be sanctioned for even making the changes in the first place. starship.paint (
exalt)02:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Because I can no longer contribute to the discussion on AN/I, I am posting this same comment on multiple user's talk pages. You are one of those users, and I apologize for bringing this to your talk page instead. I am disappointed that the issue I posted on AN/I was closed so quickly, without giving me a chance to respond. Not everybody is on Wikipedia 24 hours a day. This was my very first time reporting anything to AN/I and, yes, I should have included more detail, and I apologize for not doing so, but now I do not have the opportunity to do so.
The very fact that Hammersoft assumes that I simply don't understand Wikipedia does not assume good faith (and, yes, there is the clear implication that it is my fault that I do not understand what Hammersoft doesn't actually state). The fact that I asked questions repeatedly that Hammersoft did not answer (for no specified reason) is uncivil.
I do not believe Hammersoft is trying to improve Wikipedia here. Someone who wanted to improve Wikipedia would help figure out how to get this notable information in the article, not reject it no matter what. And they would explain why they think Pantheos is not acceptable here while it is acceptable in hundreds of other articles. Whether or not this is uncivil by the Wikipedia definition of the term, it is uncivil by the definition of the word. On notability, I argue that the proposed addition is notable simply because of its direct connection to the SCOTUS case, an "unintended consequence" of it, just like Gavin Newsom's proposal to advance gun control in California based on the Texas law that it looks like SCOTUS will uphold. Every SCOTUS case is notable and unintended consequences of those cases are notable.
Hammersoft is very good at citing all sorts of policies. I don't like citing policies as they are frequently used as a fake "appeal to authority." For example, in Hammersoft's response, they cite
WP:NOTSILENCE incorrectly. I did not say that their silence meant consent, nor did I chastise them for a general failure to respond. Not responding is their right. But they did respond and, given that, I said that their failure to respond to my questions and my attempts to confirm my understanding of what they were trying to say meant that I would assume they are incorrect. (Note: Hammersoft did what
WP:NOTSILENCE says they shouldn't do — they repeated the same things without providing additional information.)
The discussion in AN/I is also tainted. Does Cullen328 refer to other religions as "guerilla theatre groups"? Or just The Satanic Temple? Cullen328's personal opinions on a particular religion they don't like — essentially an attack on that religion — are absolutely not NPOV and do not belong in this discussion.
I do not intend to make this minor addition to Wikipedia my life's work, but it exhibits one of the things I hate about Wikipedia. Wikipedia would be much better off if people spent more time figuring out how to add important and useful (and notable!) information to Wikipedia rather than trying so hard to remove things. It's sad. I will follow up with an RfC on the issue of whether Pantheos can be cited or not (note that I have already tried, unsuccessfully, to get Hammersoft to engage on this issue).