User talk:Starship.paint/Archive 19

YOU'RE kind of the opposite of criticism!

It's your blessing and your curse, whatever that means. But seriously, when someone prefaces a "compliment" with "at least", they're being "ironic". It's like the comedic equivalent of Aja Kong backfisting an elephant into next week on rollerskates or whatever.

Anyway, I know I said I'd be back in 45 days, but I've decided the best way forward this week is hiking westward, and this week starts tomorrow, as dumb luck would have it. No Wikipedia, no women, no worries. Just one man chasing his dream of cutting off and eating a mythical beast's tail or getting bored trying. Hope you don't mind if I "write you a rain check", as the children of tomorrow used to say. Whatever strange change has come over you on the weird and wooly watercoaster that was The Last 44, just at least know that I'll always remember you're like a bird.

Now fly, my frazzled friend, fly high and never forget everything I've taught you (except the part about backfisting an elephant, that's just gross). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, August 5, 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - YOU'RE not even a real editorial, that's right. Actually, that comment of his was revealing why he ultimately preferred Republicans to Democrats, instead of hating both equally. What's wrong with women? Tell me in 45 days. I won't be backfisting any elephants. starship.paint (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Well yeah, everyone has a slight favourite once they think about it. If you held a Patriot missile battery to my head and told me to pick a lapel pin, I'd choose Democrats. But once you were out of earshot, I'd say it once and I'd say it again: Democracy simply doesn't work.

.You know what the problem with women really is, bird? They all start with W. You just don't see many manly men hanging around with worries, Wikipedia and whatnot, at least figuratively. And literally less likely to stumble across a woman in these wild woods. They're either wicked witches, white Wiccans or wedded wives. My rhetorical grandfather always said, son, if you're going to break up a marriage or interrupt a ritual, do it in polite society, in broad daylight. That way, nobody can possibly shoot or curse at you.

Seriously though, pretty uneventful trek, saw nobody bigger than squirrels of indeterminate gender (no telltale nuts) and devoid of particular political persuasion. Nice, though, in a filthy sexless hippie way. Glad I live in a people house again, though, kind of. Might just be because tonight is rainy. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, August 10, 2019 (UTC)

That's a fast 45 days, oh yeah, we don't see many manly men in wrestling, I wonder why? Wheeeee starship.paint (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

You can use world wrestling wisdom to prove anything, though, doesn't really prove anything. Or does it? In any case, I didn't realize the 45-day intermissions were mandatory, sheesh. But I get it. You're a starbird now, don't need ol' Boogeyhulk weighing you down with tales of broken clocks, wounded worms and dreaded red backstage mist (did you hear Rip says the worms are too good for Zeus?)

Seriously though, we should cowrite a reboot of No Holds Barred where absolutely nothing is different except every character is played by a woman and the bad guy is a moronic white unibrowed skinhead (Charlize Theron? Charlotte Flair? Roseanne?) First time for everything, just saying, and if we don't grab that moolah, you know who will, Koko? Women! Stealing our ideas! What would a woman know about wrestling, except everything we do and more.

Anyway, no rush. Keep on Trumpin'! Sorry for sheeshing you earlier, that wasn't very Stephanie McMahonly of me, but there's no rewriting it now...or is there? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:08, August 10, 2019 (UTC)

The intermissions are not only mandatory, but there's gotta be no wrestling during them at all, unless you're using split screens. Keep your mouth runnels, Hulk, on and on. How about skinhead Cate Blanchett? She's hela fine! starship.paint (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice to meet you

	Greetings
	~ thanks for the warning ~ lol ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs: - you're welcome, I've added one more statement made by Trump [1], thought you may be interested. starship.paint (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts, please read

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 08:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: - did you mean to post something in the second template? starship.paint (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Damn, I thought I'd fix that. Did you know there's now a self-awaremess template? {{Ds/aware}} Doug Weller talk 08:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Doug Weller, I've implemented that! starship.paint (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You need to move it to the top of your talk page. Doug Weller talk 11:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller - done, thanks again! Got a question for you though. So we can't add a list of victim names to the article. How about prose of victims including the names? starship.paint (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been following the discussion and at the moment simply don't have time. Wife's away, I have my dog, her dog, and step-sons difficult dog to look after and I need to walk ours at least 4 miles a a day! Doug Weller talk 13:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been following the discussion either. Have fun on your walk! starship.paint (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Dayton shooting

Please don't remove content from an archive page. We have a procedure for suppressing content that, for a policy reason, should not remain publicly visible. That procedure was followed in this case and suppression was rejected. While this specific content may or may not be useful in the future, removing content directly from an archive page establishes a precedent that anyone may remove content from an archive page that they don't think is useful or that they want to try to hide from view. This is not the community's policy. General Ization ^Talk 13:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@General Ization: - I'm not going to contest your revert, but frankly, you should be more flexible. We have WP:IAR for such purposes. starship.paint (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Please explain why you think we should ignore this rule. "Because I think so" isn't a valid reason. General Ization ^Talk 03:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

General Ization - (1) The original poster did not have any legitimate gripe with the picture. (2) The original poster went into more detail about the shooting than what was already covered and also talked about inspirations of copycat shootings, and thus ironically is even more likely to inspire a copycat shooting. (3) Primefac, while declining suppression, [2] said: My personal suggestion would just be to remove the thread and let it fade away into the history of the talk page. - I am interpreting removing the thread as physically blanking it from the archives, because the diffs of the content themselves are still preserved in the history of both the talk page and the talk page archive. (4) The original poster, myself, and Nice4What want the thread to be deleted, you're the only one in the way of it. starship.paint (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Primefac's advice meant to do exactly what was done, which was to manually archive the thread, thus removing it from the Talk page. If you think they meant something else, you should ask them. As I explained, my concern isn't specifically about this content, but about the notion that anyone may remove anything they would like to remove, for any reason or for no reason at all, from a Talk page archive. Whether you see it or not, that would result in chaos. The diffs still exist, but the discussion cannot be readily reconstructed from the diffs to, for example, cite it as precedent in another discussion in the future. While I understand that hiding the content is what you think should happen (or have happened) in this case, that was not the determination of the Oversight team and I don't think you, the original poster or Nice4What should substitute your judgment for theirs. General Ization ^Talk 03:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

When I wrote my opinion, the discussion was still on the talk page, and removal/archival would mean that it would no longer be immediately visible (which seems to be the main concern). If outright removal were appropriate, then it would likely have been revdel'd or suppressed. Primefac (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar

Please revert your edit. We are in middle of discussing it on the talk page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Trump administration migrant detentions

On 18 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Trump administration migrant detentions, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that U.S. Border Patrol agents reported that some migrant detainees at the U.S.–Mexico border in 2019 were housed in standing-room conditions for days or weeks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Trump administration migrant detentions. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Trump administration migrant detentions), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Advice on working on language

Please pardon the question, I'm trying to get better at this.

At Talk:List of concentration and internment camps, do you think I should be editing the block of text I put in green? Or do you think I should reproduce the whole (or parts) of the text every time I make a change?

--Pinchme123 (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pinchme123: let's just edit the text in green. starship.paint (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

What planet are these people on?

I have checked the Bible on this issue. There is no "God-given right" to own weapons. These people are fucking insane. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• @JzG: - they're on the same planet as you and me. Now, that seems like something to pray about. starship.paint (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  @JzG: - frankly, these mass shootings convinced me that there is no higher being that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent (see Problem of evil) What does it say about any higher being that does not take action simply because people have not prayed enough? starship.paint (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  Starship.paint, the fundamental problem when you allow religion into politics is that you don't get to vote for the pastors. You substitute the judgment of unelected religious leaders for any objective fact. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  @JzG: - that's an astute observation, and certainly a problem. But isn't there a very similar problem for any kind of lobbying and special interests? starship.paint (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  Starship.paint, up to a point, but usually the lobbyists are not deferred to in the same way that preachers are. Preachers set themselves up as authorities, as final arbiters of Truth™. Lobbyists will argue their corner but not normally in such absolutist terms. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  @JzG: - yes, the preachers directly influence the voters, if that is what you are arguing. I was considering a different point: when a politician speaks, is it really their words or their lobbyists'? starship.paint (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

"Sharpiegate" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sharpiegate. Since you had some involvement with the Sharpiegate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Lmatt (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for joining the discussion on RD: Carol Lynley with some very strong arguments that helped in gaining consensus to post. DBigXrayᗙ 10:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the appreciation DBigXray - and for your hard work. starship.paint (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Back

To take a famous ruling by the Honourable Robert Palmer slightly out of context, you might as well face it, you're addicted to Trump. Could you not have waited till Halloween to dress WrestleMania IV and V's esteemed patron as an influential demon familiar of a libtard snowflake turned racist gun-rights monster hailing from the other side of the damned country? You could have at least waited till Canadian Thanksgiving to stuff those fully loaded references from "in your house" into a simple quotation about general Republican population control tendencies. Was that really called for, this soon in the endless election cycle of hell? You be the judge, I guess.

Anyway, if you're looking for a good show about demons, drinking and disenchantment, I nominate Disenchantment. Part three should be out shortly before Kamala Harris seemingly makes the Million Dollar Team's mystery partner allegedly submit in his own backyard, and three months after Bernie Sanders is literally lowered into a casket by the undertaker. I won't spoil the part about the elf and the princess for you, on either side of the mirror, just out of common decency, but they're quite good at turning me on.

Good to have you back in the old royal rumble, that's the important thing, better early than never! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, September 28, 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - you’re a freakish mind reader. I thought I didn’t edit Trump articles during this break. But I just logged in to do so. starship.paint (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

My only uncanny abilities are of the Beastmaster, Firestarter and Millenium varieties. I couldn't even tell you about your first tattoo (or lack thereof). If your ATM pin number begins with 80, that's just a coincidence.

As for your relapse back to the future, a renowned frontman for The News once blamed The Power of Love. It was long ago and far away, sure, but objects in the rear view mirror may appear closer than they are. Not to put too sweet a point on it, but have you ever considered your complicated celebrity bromance with this large orange blonde nWo leader may in fact not be unlike oxygen, whereas a bit gets you high then too much and you die?

Indulge responsibly and drive safely, that's all. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, September 29, 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - there's been a huge scandal about Trump lately for Ukraine, but I didn't edit anything about that, though I was tempted to. I think that's improvement! starship.paint (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I filled in for you on that one, unwittingly. Not as much as you were probably tempted to, or from the same angle, but something. Editing Trump's lead is a harsh trip, reminded me of the tedious load times back when ISIL was infamous. I don't see myself chasing this dragon into the cold turkey weeks ahead, but it wasn't a totally wasted experience. I got to catch up with Mr. X again and chat about the illusory nature of power in the art of the deal, and met a curious character who seemed to truly believe Joe Biden might win the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Battle Royal and go on to challenge whomever the champion of his choosing may be when the quadrennial thanksgiving extravaganza runs wild on you, brother. Can you even imagine?

Ugandan Headhunter all the way, I say, though I feel I should immediately apologize for saying it like that. It's just that I read a stimulating interview today with The Wizard, published shortly after he sold his pair of touring savage slaves to the devious Mr. Fuji and was unceremoniously shipped back to Hawaii (like House Minority Speaker Daenerys Targaryen, 'member?) He raised some valid points about how Kamala and Sika were destined to manifest greatness over the corpses of all the Real American Hulkamaniacs because Fuji understood the Forbidden Mysteries of the Orient like no slickster nor weasel nor Mouth of the South ever could. He refused to disclose specifics of the ancient campaign strategies to "unbelievers" through the press, but did say music helped soothe the wild beast and that Kimchee was key to the plot. He revealed the mighty Kamala would soon eclipse the setting Samoan son, because size does matter and lo, it did come to pass.

Got me thinking, you "hail from the East" and watch over the West, don't you? Have you ever noticed how amazingly racist the interference and introduction of foreign objects game was before Trump drained the Jersey swamp in '88? And have you ever heard Biden cut a promo where he mentions tagging with a Puerto Rican, Samoan or Italian? Even Vince Sr. knew it took more than putting over Bobo and Big Cat. Where's Jose Luis Rivera? Spiros Arion? Ivan Putski? Tito Santana? Rene Goulet? Rick Martel? Tony Garea? The Tonga Kid? Satoru Sayama? Kendo Nagasaki? Any one of those beloved old-timers could go full Asuka on all parties if they'd JUST BRING IT, you know? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:59, October 1, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah it definitely isn't easy doing anything to the lede, but I've done so anyway. Ha! Mr. X or Wikipedia's MrX? LOL. It's Prime Minister Daenerys, actually - and it's also kimchi. Less lo and more Io. Yes, I do remember PAC, check him out! No, I can't remember anything from 1988. The thing is ... are you ready? starship.paint (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been meaning to see what the pre-WWE online fuss was about for some time, but something older or newer always comes up first. If you're ready for the deepest, darkest dirtsheet scoop on real Kimchee, Google "WWF Magazine June 1987". Also contains a riveting alternate history piece on what might happen if Idi Amin's bodyguard met up with a walking condominium within the confines of a squared circle. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:25, October 1, 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - that cabbage was more like Rorschach! starship.paint (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. To be clearer, I meant the fuss about PAC. The rest is open to interpretation, just like Marianne "Lightning Kid" Williamson and her little birds, man. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:42, October 1, 2019 (UTC)

Or did you mean Kimchee looks like Rorschach? If so, yes, I believe you are correct, sir. This is...most troubling. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:27, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

Also, you seem to have gone from away until October to back until October. If true, that is most troubling! Kimchach can wait. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:37, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

Fixed the paradox. Yes, Kimchee is cabbage, the reincarnation of our ink blot! Seems like Doctor Manhattan ain’t so omnipotent after all. starship.paint (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

In this rebooted timeline, I return triumphantly out of the blue, just ranting about Robert Palmer for reasons made unclear to the audience. Seems a little "rushed". Has my character been developed enough for this penultimate meltdown, or will it all seem like years of wasted foreshadowing? Am I even still married to Janet in this one? Wait, no. The Wizard. All coming back to me now. We must stop the Living Receiver in 28 days! Not a second sooner or later. And by we, I mean you. I can't work under these wildly fluctuating conditions. I'll be in my trailer. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:21, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

Man, who knew Mysterio was really Donnie Darko? You should have, Hulk, you were there! Yer a wizard! starship.paint (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Dude, not every stark raving Maple Leaf Wrestling fan famous for playing an unconvincing '88 Hulkster online is Stuart Stone. At the time that movie was shot, I was still just a regular smalltown teen with ordinary dreams of a Y2K-ready Christina Applegate and three-dimensional Smurfette one day coming together to solve America's greatest problem of the day: a tremendous dearth of international interspecies deepfake hypnosis porn.

Then 9/11, Viacom and Avatar changed everything. Suddenly the idea of a skeleton playing the xylophone in front of an older woman in a position of power while his sister's dead boyfriend watches in reverse through water just wasn't "hot enough for TV" anymore. Jack had to get ripped and go to Iraq, while Margaret had to get naked and molested by a heterosexual midget for national security reasons. Not cool, man!

America owes those siblings big, and what better way to make Republicans suck a fuck than giving them high-level cabinet positions as a symbolic gesture toward reparation and reconciliation? If any Democrat can promise the Gyllenhaals will make everything better for Hollywood types, I will do my utmost to support your campaign through official Algonquin folk magic. No joke. Quid pro quo, yo! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:06, October 3, 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - your alternate timeline is really wacky. Just like this one! starship.paint (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, beneath my velvet lies, there's a truth as hard as steel: the vision never dies, like some neverending wheel. One day it's an ocean, one day ice in motion, one day it's a teardrop in your eye. One and one and one make three, got to be good-looking if it's so hard to see. These things I say, does my purple prose give me away? These things, some say...they're unavoidable (Oh!)

Seriously though, shine on, you crazy diamonds! Maybe in another year, the pain will disappear, and you can look back on your life as if it were a dream. Hope springs eternal, so put on the glasses, get comfortably numb and wish you were her! Change is an illusion, but what we choose is our choice, and what's a boy supposed to do? Maybe you were blind before, but you're not afraid, anymore!

Alternatively, if optimistic Top 40 nostalgia waves are somehow inappropriate in this dystopian future, might I suggest dropping out of the race entirely and tuning into the voracious march of godliness that makes us all the same anyway? Meaning Paradise Lost, not Bad Religion. A middle road less traveled might begin again in Andrew Jackson Jihad's semi-unforgettable ditty, "Love Will Fork Us Apart". InedibleHulk (talk) 11:03, October 4, 2019 (UTC)

Who can say where the road goes? Where the day flows? Only time. Next on my playlist. It's my party, I do, do what I want! starship.paint (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Have you listened to I Disagree yet? That album explains everything. Even what Lesley Gore was afraid to ask (to a certain extent, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, there you have it, Starbird. As one Kamala sets in the 75-year shadow of Nagasaki, another rises above the 67 candles on Hulk Hogan's birthday cake. And we owe it all to one little old white dude, of whom I am still unable to speak, fighting so hard to prove my foggy calculations wrong on May 19..."The Night That Nothing Happened!" InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Don't pop the champagne yet. We can only hope. Chop Suey! Agree? starship.paint (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Disagree with going Roaring Twenties atop the poor rich kid's political grave, but Here We Go on creating another fable. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, it worked again, system's back online! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2019 Southeast Asian haze

On 28 September 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019 Southeast Asian haze, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Spencer^T•C 16:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey You

I just wanted to say I've seen you around a lot and appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. I always enjoy seeing your signature show up on a talk page, even if we don't have perfectly matching viewpoints or opinions. Thank you for contributing, even if life gets hard, and I understand needing to step away for periods. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 02:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Gwenhope: - thanks for the kind words Gwen, I do my best on-wiki. I haven't seen you around anywhere before today, actually. A fellow connoisseur of purple, too! I took a look at your user page, and I hope you will recover from your mental health issues, though it isn't an easy journey. I was surprised at how much personal information was on-wiki. By the way, your Twitter account link on your user page is broken due to the extra @. starship.paint (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I know you do, I've seen it. I guess perhaps we've been talking past each other on different page sections or such. I've seen you quite a bit. Mental health issues suck. Anxiety and depression suck, and gender dysphoria and interpersonal drama to boot doesn't help. Thank you, I've fixed that Twitter link now. We do both indeed enjoy purple!~ Best color is best. Regarding personal information, I believe in openness, honesty, authenticity as best as life allow us to be. Please feel free to talk to me anytime, on-wiki or off-wiki. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 02:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Gwenhope: - stay strong during this tough period, you can do it! Actually I think yellow is best, but it doesn't show up well here! Purple is second :) Also, thank you for the kind offer! starship.paint (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Latest revert at Hunter Biden

I undid a recent addition on the grounds that (a) it's not Wikipedia's job to dig through bank statements, (b) we should stick with what the more recent reports in more reliable publications say, and (c) the text didn't accord with its own source (turning "most months" into all months, for example). You probably have an opinion on this. XOR'easter (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: - while I do not really care about the specific content in question, I would say that is a good revert because the sources are lacking. starship.paint (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I've about used up my capacity of caring, too, though I did leave a reply here. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Invasion of Syria

My post was an edit conflict..Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Slatersteven: - it's cool and trivial. I'm not miffed about it. starship.paint (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Also I would watch it, not sure you are not not too close to 1RR.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: - I'm pretty sure I'm exactly on 1RR. Not planning to revert any further. starship.paint (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: - frankly the article is a war zone and if people insist on doing day-by-day updates then 1RR will be totally overwhelmed. starship.paint (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that was (in essence) my first ever post there. I think that no edits without discussion DS might be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

thanks

I thought that was a productive discussion, and I think that subsection was much improved by your edits. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: It ain't over. Regarding [3], I did find a source which said the Federalist did not mention that. [4] The Federalist used a screenshot of that field to illustrate its story. What the article didn’t mention or screenshot is a nearly identical field gracing Form 401 since at least May 2018, making it impossible that it was added as an easement for Trump’s whistleblower. The major difference in the fields is that the old form includes three options instead of two, subdividing secondhand sources into outside source and “other employees.” starship.paint (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it's never over. Even if you revert my changes, I still think it was a good conversation that produced a productive edit. As for this quote you've provided, I don't feel that I understand the point being made, but it is certainly misleading to say that Davis didn't mention the two boxes when he had a picture of the two boxes in his story. If you want to try again, be my guest. What's the language you're proposing to add back in? We should probably discuss on talk, not here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - Davis mentioned the two boxes of August 2019, Beast acknowledged (The Federalist used a screenshot of that field to illustrate its story.). That's not the problem. Davis didn't mention the May 2018's three boxes (article didn’t mention or screenshot is a nearly identical field gracing Form 401 since at least May 2018). That's my point. If you understand that now, we don't need to go to article talk, because in my view it's a reading error on your part that can easily be resolved. starship.paint (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I don't understand! He didn't mention the boxes at all. What you're proposing to add gives the false impression that he made a mistaken claim about the boxes. But he didn't, since he didn't say anything about the boxes on any form at all. I think the point you mean to make is something like: "when Davis claimed that the forms were changed, someone might have thought that he believed that the box about second hand info was added in (even though he didn't explicitly say that). But it later emerged that the boxes were present in some form all the way back to 2018." If that's the point, my reply is: Davis didn't say anything about the boxes, and we are not justified in thinking that he meant to imply something about them. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

You're a reading error! Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: Okay - I'll take it to article talk (later) instead of reply. I'll also revert (later), but probably with an alternative wording to address your above post. But not now. Will take hours. Thanks for being nice and collaborative. I do appreciate it, and you're not even a real editorial. starship.paint (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Good luck with the revision. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for comments

I invite you to participate in the ongoing discussion at Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests#RFC: Add any foreign countries as "support" of the protesters at infobox. KasimMejia (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me KasimMejia, I was aware of the discussion, but I have no opinion as of now. starship.paint (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

[5] Weighed in. starship.paint (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Snoogs ANI

I have no concern about having my ANI close undone, but you might consider asking at AN for a prompt close. There's no consensus at ANI and there will never be consensus no matter how long it stays open. The only thing that's happening now, from what I can see, is pointless potshots, purported evidence, from long-time "opponents" of Snoogs on esoteric politics-related articles. No doubt Snoogs' tone is not always helpful to his efforts, but that's not what's on the table there. SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: - done. You may weigh in with your opinion. starship.paint (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Dear Starship.paint,

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

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

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

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Archiving ANI

Hello Starship.paint. Please consider using the User:Technical 13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver. See an example at this ANI diff. This creates an edit summary that points to the archived item which (1) tells everybody what was archived, (2) allows them to look at it if they don't remember the issue. If a person has ANI on their watchlist this allows them to keep up better with what is going on. When the edit summary just says 'archive' this doesn't put any useful information on people's watch lists. (i.e. there is no description of what was archived). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: - I have successfully installed the script and archived a thread. Much appreciated for your help :) starship.paint (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Hey! I’m an Aussie actor I was wondering if you guys could help me make a wiki page for me :) Derensen22 (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Derensen22: - send me news reports about yourself. If you don't have that, you likely won't qualify for an article. starship.paint (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)