User talk:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

TFMWNCB  FOREVER

Young lady

I am forty years old. It's been quite a while since someone has attempted to flatter my youth. It is also July. In California, little ice exists outside of margarita glasses during this season. Cheers, Durova²⁷⁷ 14:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a thread about this at WP:AN/I which you may be interested in. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's no Betacommand subpage but still mildly enjoyable. Thanks for the heads-up.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

hmmmmmmm ...

Well, I'm happy to see my fat lady survived on your archive header !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibtc9J9AUqk&feature=related

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC) (who always thought 40 was young!)

Adoption

Thanks for your note. However I've never adopted a user so I'd be a poor "adopter". If you're interested in being adopted I suggest Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User, which contains instructions for seeking adoption. Feel free to contact me if you need help with any specific issue.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if no one else wants him, I guess I'll just have to take the poor lost boy! It's just a matter of when ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I know someone who will adopt him and provide unlimited free lemonade.[1] But he'll have to put on some weight.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a "Hot Mama" who looks big enough to handle His Corpulence (not sure what's under that skirt, though). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAPzwOe8gEk&feature=related SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, does SG have a webcam? I think it's time we have a WP article about our esteemed FA chief. SG will have to recuse herself if the article is later nominated (and I know how to include an OGG video, see McCain). Surely SG is as notable as, say, them. Perhaps the Fat Man could throw his inestimable weight behind this proposal?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you confusing me with Bernadette Peters or with the fat mama? (I like how the doyenne of musical theatre shows Madonna how to do it right.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Fat Mama.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't wear floral prints. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Noted. We'll have a separate section on attire.  :)Ferrylodge (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

On a tire? Not fun ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Spill the beans

Who is this person, and why is he messing with me ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

PS, I hope The Pointy One is either a relative or someone who speaks Spanish, so I can unload on him how I feel about someone messing with my affection for Your Rotundity! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Block

You've done better satire, by the way.--Tznkai (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the unacceptable nature of these edits to my attention. I will consider my actions and study the appropriate policies and guidelines over the next seven days; together, we will ensure that my use of humor is carefully vetted and steeped in a blinding essence of propriety henceforth. We appreciate your diligence and commend both your investigative prowess and judicious use of the administrator tools. Warmest regards, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have asked Tznkai to unblock. If he doesn't, I probobly will. Viridae^Talk 13:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not for reasons stated on my talk page, below and suggest you do not as well, We've had quite enough of unilateral unblocks in the past while. Take it to ANI if you'd like: I think Fat Man would be amused. --Tznkai (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• For my money this is an exceptionally stupid and ill timed block. Protonk (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes. Exceptionally stupid to block someone evading a block placed on an IP. Lets see here:

• (del/undel) 04:42, 3 October 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case ‎ (did you hear what I just said? polling is evil, but LOLing is, well......)
• (del/undel) 04:39, 3 October 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case ‎ (one can try to remove the poll, but it's difficult to remove the **LOL** LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!)
• (del/undel) 03:22, 1 October 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Rhesus Macaque ‎ (lol)
• (del/undel) 17:28, 29 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Rhesus Macaque ‎ (→lol: new section)

The last two, by the way was "welcome to America, Macaca! "

Real funny. Oddly, no one is complaining about that block.--Tznkai (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

the ip block was incorrect as well. The difference Is that no one sticks up for anon ip users. Also, tznkai, your credentials for evaluating the "funniness" of one of the most sophisticated dadaist trolls on the Internet is suspect at best. You are out of your element.--166.137.134.17 (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

From my talk page:

Can you please reconsider your one week block on the Fat man. Cool Hand Luke, an arb, apparently has no problem with that edit, he commented on it and didn't remove it. Nor do several other people who commented in good humor as well. A week's block is ridiculously long (any block is too long) for something that is not disruptive, an simply upsets your sensibilities. Viridae^Talk 13:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It has become rapidly apparent that arbs make mistakes at least as often as the rest of us. It isn't just my sensibilities that were offended - I try to keep myself aware of the effects poor humor can have on many others. In point of fact, Fat man had evaded a block I had just placed on his IP, after it disrupted WP:RFAR. I'm not whether to call it vandalism, or trolling, or just trouble making - perhaps mooning. It is not welcome in any case, and there have been several incidents on that IP before hand and it had a lengthy enough block log to justify a one week block on its face.--Tznkai (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like block evasion is the fig leaf here. Protonk (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is of course why I mentioned it first. I'm that clever. But fine, unblock if you feel that strongly about it. I just happen to think that changing your IP and signing on to your account to add bad joke to already questionable conduct is more than enough to justify continuing the original block. I wouldn't be surprised if I had block him for 2 weeks instead, we'd be arguing that i need to reduce it to one week.--Tznkai (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What does inappropriate use of humor mean? --Moni3 (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Offensive to the point of personally insulting someone. In this case, that someone is not me. As I said elsewhere "Frivolous mockery involving crude sexual humor is made worse - not better, by a few guys shrugging it off." It isn't particularly funny, but it is a little mean. People often confuse meanness for humor. In any case, the material is gone by Luke's own action, so I presume I'm not the only one who has figured out what the problem is.--Tznkai (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

For this, would it be best to initiate the deletion process for Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence?

I'm on my own personal crusade recently that consists mainly of fussing on back talk pages where no one really reads my opinions that decry the system that allows alternate accounts and socking, but had The Fat Man made his post as The Fat Man, I'm at a loss as to how our community is so gossamer gentle that it may rend apart should it be presented with adult humor.

Frivolous mockery involving crude sexual humor...you should see my talk page sometimes. If this is to be a trend, to grow into a policy, I think the community should define what frivolous mockery consists of, and determine that crude sexual humor has no place in English discourse. Come to think, perhaps the process of deletion should be started for William Shakespeare. Is it merely the words that inspire this action? If I said I think this action is as helpful as ingesting a maximum-strength laxative immediately prior to meeting Her Royal Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to discuss, no doubt, what she finds most intriguing about scatological humor, would that be better than saying I fart all over your talk page with a force, volume, and anal sphincter resonance directly correlating to the dubiousness of the block? Would I also receive a block if I directed my keen wit inwardly by calling myself a pluperfect representative of the gayest disco-loving, comfortable shoe-wearing, bean-flicking, muff-diving faggotry ever to walk the earth? Surely the community should be protected from reading such commentary.

I didn't have to post all that. I could have said, "That's ridiculous", but it was so much fun I decided to do it anyway. I imagine The Fat Man had a similar objective. --Moni3 (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So you feel. I made a judgment call, based on what I know. I personally think my track record suggests I don't do things without good reason. You may feel differently. The unblock button is to your left.--Tznkai (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol. It should be noted that the phrase "two fucking arbitrators" referred to the arbitrators with fucking as an adjective, not a verb. And I'll refrain from taking the bait offered to Moni and myself, given your warning about unilateral unblocks above. Protonk (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)As an addendum, there is a wide gulf between finding a particular instance inappropriate behavior and censorship of language and literature. Your criticism makes about as much sense to me as mocking my prudish demand of conservative sexual morality when I am merely offended at someone being called a slut.--Tznkai (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not bait, a genuine offer. I don't wheel war, and I don't care about this anymore. I've done what I think is best and I've gotten mocked for it. That is far and away what I expected, but I have paid my dues for this action.--Tznkai (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked.--Tznkai (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked? Fuck. He would have made a fine martyr. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as the party to whom the offending remark and image was directed

Wikipedia has a very serious gender gap in its contributors; fewer than 20% of our editors are women. An even smaller percentage of women hold adminship or other advanced permissions. It's no wonder to me that we have so few women editing; many women editors of my acquaintance have never even admitted onwiki that they are female. Do you think that's likely to change when one of the few women to run the gauntlet of election is portrayed as having sexual relations with a colleague? Does it occur to you that perhaps other people are seeing this and thinking it might be accepted behaviour, especially when someone else undoes the redaction (yes, I am looking at you, Viridae)? I have grown inured to the constant browbeating that comes with being a member of the Arbitration Committee, but this was a new low, unquestionably sexist (you wouldn't have used that image if both arbitrators were male), and a personalised insult that was beyond poor taste. I don't expect an apology, but I do expect you to understand that your unthinking desire to poke fun can have unintended consequences. If we are unsuccessful in attracting qualified women candidates for the Arbitration Committee this year, I will look to this episode as one of the causes. Risker (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's interesting that the majority of editors who participate in FAC are female, as much as I am fascinated that younger males tend to participate with enthusiasm at RfA. (Were I making a joke about the carnal relations of arb members, I definitely would have used two editors I perceived as male...but thankfully, even with the catalyst phrase "two fucking arbitrators", my mind does not go to that place.) I don't think women are less capable or willing to get involved out of being intimidated by an old boys' network. I just think most have a lower tolerance for the unending bullshit that goes on at ANI and ArbCom. The only place it seems to actually get things done, especially from my vantage point, is in content. --Moni3 (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Moni, nobody's suggesting you're sleeping with SandyGeorgia to have sway at the featured articles pages. It may be hard to believe, given that arbitration cases are about behaviour rather than content, but the majority of cases *do* have an effect on content. The most obvious way in which that happens is by removing problematic editors from content areas they "own" or have turned into some sort of walled garden or battlefield, allowing other editors who don't relish having to do battle just to improve grammar to move into those articles and improve them. The matter that dozens of editors in the community have now spent endless amounts of time discussing will have little effect on the encyclopedia, no matter how it turns out. The really important case on the docket, Eastern European Mailing List, has the potential to make a major impact, to affect several wikiprojects, and to cause ripples all the way to featured content. Yet I'm not seeing a lot of obvious eyes there. Oh well; perhaps when we get the proposed decision up, everyone will come and see what we have wrought. Risker (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, gracious. You put that idea about sexual favors in return for FA promotions out into the universe. You know someone will pick it up. However, I have considered it rather a humorous contemplation to claim that one would do such a thing when getting an FA promotion is in relation to all the things people in the world actually pay attention to in the way of achievement, laughably small. It reminds me of The Onion op ed where a woman wrote that she slept her way to the top of the Homeowner's Association.

On professionalism, however, there is some room for thought. With Casliber's resignation, KirillLokshin's after getting beat up for putting out an idea, SamBlacketer for...doing that thing he did... I think editors and arbs both can benefit from ratcheting up the professionalism some. I do not think The Fat Man should have been blocked at all for his edits, so I am facing what appears to be a double standard in my own thinking. It's not actually a double standard, but it is nebulous. It has to do more with expression and the allowance of criticism, albeit characterized from HIGH-larious to juvenile and disruptive.

At any rate, I think we're at a bit of a crossroads about what to make this place: a masquerade ball, as it has apparently been with all these alt and sock accounts, or a place to get some damn business done and add to some content. I don't want some of the fun to go away, though. I'm not sure one has to be compromised for the other, still keeping free expression possible as criticism keeps folks honest. --Moni3 (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite being a product of the television, I happen to think there is a line between unpleasant but needs to be protected criticism and simple insult (to paraphrase to the point of linguistic slaughter, frivolity isn't criticism) and I thought the line was crossed here. I don't particularly want to spend a whole lot of time on this, but I think the defense of "free expression" is, however interesting in general, hollow. Sure, that may mean I shouldn't have blocked in that I am somehow enforcing my "power" in service of some establishment, but it doesn't justify the originating conduct.--Tznkai (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this has to do with personal perception of one's lines and our respective comfort levels. Criticism in general makes some uncomfortable, from whence we get overzealous admins who block for civility reasons for a comment made about a dysfunctional system instead of a person's attributes. Criticizing people who we admire or who are in some kind of power, such as Risker, a hard-working, earnest, and honest arbitrator (don't you dare make some public revelation or apology that will make me regret posting this) makes that discomfort more intense. Then there is the apparently paroxysmal image-association with double entendre mixed with vague criticism, such as what was done in this instance. A random post meant to turn someone's frustrations into a hilarious double meaning, which excelled far more in humor than efficacy in hammering home a point about arbs being at fault about anything. (Note my "hammering home" opening for someone else to come along and turn that into a ruder post...)

I can foresee a point where arbs must dissociate themselves from all unbusinesslike interaction during their tenure, if indeed the professionalism on this site should increase. One does not go into a position of power, such as politics or business, to be free of any criticism, including from the proverbial peanut gallery, whose lampooning may be just for shits and giggles because JFK had a funny accent or Obama's ears stick out, but may also extend to commentary meant to shock. Shock itself is a form of criticism and rebellion, meant to jolt us out of our comfortable places. Frankly, I don't see what The Fat Man did that was much different than what Wikipedia arbs have had a taste of in international press. Should we have arbs who are unreliable and support the MMPORG atmosphere of creating knowledge, this will only become more intense. Y'all need to stay confident in your fabulousness without getting arrogant, able to see the kernel of what valid criticism there may be in spoofing. --Moni3 (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be no way to avoid the government analogy here, so I'll just dive into it. Arbitrators are public figures - by their own choice, and thus are not protected from libel and slander and other naughtiness as others, or so the rationale goes. That having been said, some actions even one of protest, no matter how political, can still be rightfully prevented and punished (in the theories of punishment concept, not our peculiar way of addressing the concept on Wikipedia). For example, throwing shoes or pies, clearly acts of criticism and protest, will still someone in jail for assault. Outright fabrications are still punished, especially if made maliciously. You still get punished for defacing a courtroom or public square.

Further, I don't see where the Arbitrators put their own personal lives and attributes on the line for the sake of good project governance. While the general "necessity of criticism" holds water as far as lampooning an Arb's editing habits, writing style, content creation and other on wiki or wiki related mistakes, but how does that translate to their personal attributes or lives? I'm a functionary, but I don't think that means I singed up to have my name exposed, my racial heritage analyzed, or my appearance mocked.

I may be out the weeds here, but I think that this is substantially the same as this and is not all together different this. Even if we establish that the last case is different, does that inure the user then from the block applied for clear vandalism they owned up to? I happen to think not, and I don't think my understanding of the need to protect criticism is any less than yours.--Tznkai (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Risker. Sorry for the delay in responding; I've been away for my TFM account for awhile--for the most part I've been employing infantile (though--I would argue--harmless) vandal-accounts to edit, though I rarely edit at all. I am sad to inform you that you were not the "party to whom the offending remark and image was directed." That "party" would be Messedrocker or whatever he calls himself now... the edit was intended as a visual pun meant to ridicule another editor's histrionics over what I saw as an unremarkable edit war. If I had been jonesing to ridicule you (and I do admit to having peppered numerous arbitrators with cheap personal barbs in the past), I probably would have started with your appreciation of James Blunt.

In any case, I regret that you identified in any way with the garish subject of Goya's rape scene; I assure you my intent was not to suggest that CHL was literally fucking Risker. Perhaps you're thinking a bit too concretely, but you are not alone. You inhabit an expansive and growing universe of women who do not find my jokes funny. I would suggest commiserating with my sister (who regularly deletes the comments I leave on her Facebook wall) or with some of my ex-girlfriends.

As for the question of whether my antics are driving quality female editors away from the back pages of Wikipedia, I doubt this is true--but if it were, I would welcome their departure. Like many, I have gradually arrived at the opinion that intelligent women--and intelligent men, for that matter--should not be wasting their time on the surreal and tiresome political imbroglios of this silly website. If my boorishness "hastens the day" (as we say on the Wikipedia Review) of their disenchantment with WP and inspires them to take up worthier pastimes, I should be congratulated, not scolded.

Moni3, I adore you, as always; I would hug you if I could, but you need not defend me any further. I am a naughty, naughty man, and I am up to nothing good.

Tznkai, you mean well and perform your administrator duties (such as they are) admirably, but I find you to be something of a douche. While it is true that meanness does not--in and of itself--equal humor, cruelty and schadenfreude are inseparable components of that which makes us, as humans, laugh. If witnessing people being ridiculed and abused were not funny, there would be no Three Stooges, no America's Funniest Home Videos, no South Park, no Howard Stern, no 4chan. This might be your utopian ideal, but please don't enforce it on me.

This concludes your evening with Fat Man Who Never Came Back. I'm off to the Reference Desk ecause I have a question about sundried tomatoes.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Goya vey! Masterpieces of Wikipedia: An Exhibition

Dammit Fats, if you're gonna troll with Francisco, go with the best. Herewith an exhibition of Spain's finest blockable works of art, with suggested captions. Put 'em on your local Wikicrat's talk page for a Real Fun Time:

• 
  ArbCom at the Latest WikiFest
• 
  New Editors Welcomed Into the Community
• 
  Another Editor Baited on a Talk Page
• 
  Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents
• 
  Los Bloqueros
• 
  Real Friends Help Friends Bury Bodies (a/k/a Los Sockos Enableros)
• 
  Community Ban Discussion
• 
  The Edit War
• The RfA Candidate, Ready to Please
  The RfA Candidate, Ready to Please
• 
  Creation of The Cabal
• 
  Checkuser at Work
• 
  Another Discussion at RFAR
• 
  After a POV Fight With a Cabal
• 
  Making Wikipedia Safe for School Kids
• 
  The Victorious POV Pusher
• 
  Wikipedia Rewarding It's Content-Space Editors

Somehow I don't think I could curate an exhibit like this for, say, Georgia O'Keefe. This exhibition will run through November 1 at the ever expanding Museum of Wikipedia Atrocities. I'm resigning. Don't ask me to stay or I'll mess up your talk page again. -- Noroton (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

An interesting exhibit. Will it tour? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. I stuck it on my user page. -- Noroton (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to post it on my user talk page for those who might find it intriguing if display there is deemed appropriate and if I can comply with the appropriate GFDL attribution requirements and art-loan criteria. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I hereby certify that you are fully entitled, authorized, empowered, entrusted, enabled, ennobled, enriched, enchanted, entrusted (oh, I already said that, didn't I), and licensed to reproduce, copy, tear, mutilate and spindle any damn thing I ever added to this web site and stick it on any user page and associated page on Wikipedia, by the powers granted to me by my very existence. I believe that covers it. I tweaked the exhibit a bit on my own page, and you might want that version. (Disclaimer: No specific Wikipedians were meant to be hurt in the making of this exhibition.) Go get 'em, tiger! -- Noroton (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gail King

The article Gail King has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

notability and no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tsange ^►talk 16:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, WTF? I created that page as a plausible misspelling-redirect to Oprah's gal-pal. I have nothing to do with this subsequent nonsense.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I corrected them on that, when someone proposes something for deletion using Twinkle it defaults to notifying the creator of the article, regardless of if it was originally a redirect. Should have let you know.--kelapstick (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well tell the kids to stop Twinkling me. I'm very irritable.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

FAC review from content expert needed

• Well? Are you still irritable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I missed a step; I didn't realize the ... ummmm ... predicament :) My Big Brown Boy died :-( Welcome back ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'm so very sorry to hear about your bedmate. He was sickly, but I know he was loyal and you loved him so. Well, that is just terrible.

As for my "predicament," it was entirely of my own making. I had been very naughty and managed to get my longtime IP blocked for 3 months. I'm not "back" in any real sense. Just here to vote in the ArbCom elections and to snap that rubber wristband when the urge arises to pen juvenile ejaculations on certain talk pages. You're still going strong, I see.

I miss the old crew; I see many of them are still editing, which is nice. Is Ceoil okay? I worry about that Celt ruffian.

I'm on the Wikipedia Review an awful lot now, when I'm not watching weird Japanese porn and splatter films. I hate everyone on that board, and they despise me as well, but the conversation is lively, and there's some sort of sense of community. Nice to hear from you. Thanks for writing to me when I was down. Love, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ceoil is fine-- has been traveling. Why is Japanese porn weirder than any other porn? (Do I want to know? :) I shall send you a long update soon: be afraid !!! Love, S

Japanese porn is deliciously weird, as even Wikipedia can show. Nice comment regarding "amateurs, children and ne'er-do-wells on AN, Fatty! GTD 16:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting

You are an interesting character. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Only in small doses. I'm with me 24 excruciating hours a day.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I thought you never came back. Welcome back anyway. :) 64.68.239.22 (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank ye. That aspect of my user name is not to be taken literally. But I am actually fat. And a man... technically.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope that was a reference to "What man? Which man? Who's the man? When's a man a man? What makes a man a man? Am I a man? Yes. Technically I am." The Hero of This Nation (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of OBAMA!

I have nominated OBAMA! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 10:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You are a long-legged mack-daddy.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Bambenek

Really? That's skirting common courtesy and Wikipedia's civility policies.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has civility policies?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you being dense on purpose?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No. I am being awesome.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And I am going to copy the text from the subpage user talk to here (so it will actually be kept somewhere because that page will surely be deleted)—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC):

Bambenek has never been notable and never will be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. The only references on this page show that he was a speaker at a workshop, was quoted for two short sentences in the NYTimes, slightly more times in the Washington Post, and appeared on a mock news show where he was used to produce comedic effect. The only way we can catch his sockpuppets (he has edited in the past) is the fact that they come back every few months to request an article be made. This is in its totality a wholly unreferenced BLP with the only instances of references being used to say "Oh, he's notable because he was quoted in three news sources".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"And never will be"?????? That's a very strong (not to mention purely and groundlessly speculative) statement and shows you are incapable of looking at the Bambanek question objectively.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

We have policies that determine whether or not an article is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (people). John Bambenek does not fulfill its primary criteria which is that "he has [not] been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." He is most certainly not the subject of the workshop, the New York Times article, the Washington Post article, or the Daily Show's Daylight Savings Time sketch. Until he becomes the subject, to be specific the focus, of any sort of publication that fulfills the English Wikipedia's reliable source criteria, then there will never be an article on John Bambenek, John C. Bambenek, John C. A. Bambenek, or any variation thereof.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh.... so now it's until he becomes the subject of a notable publication. That's a far cry form he "never will be" notable. Choose your words more carefully.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's still a near impossiblity of it ever happening. Unless you count this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a mean-spirited link of mockery and derision, not to mention a BLP violation. I realize you have a personal dislike of Bambenek and find him to be a ridiculous person, but please try to maintain focus.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not have any emotional attachment to the presence or absence of an article on this individual on Wikipedia. You should not jump to conclusions or make intentionally derisive remarks towards users in good standing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never concealed my derision toward the WP "old guard" and do not plan on concealing it tomorrow. JzG and Willbeback have the wikifriends, means and free time to defend themselves; John Bambenek, on the other hand, is a banned, wacky kook, so you and the gang feel comfortable suppressing his edits making jokes at his expense. This is wicked and spiteful; I urge repentance.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So you are standing up for the perennial underdog who has only come to Wikipedia to attempt to get an article on himself written despite the fact that there has not yet been any proof that he is a notable living individual in society (other than one of derision himself according to the state of Illinois and its inhabitants). Kudos. It's certainly a level I've never went to before.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What you are implying is typical around here--specifically, that certain editors who--due to an arbitrary mix of backroom influence-peddling and shifty adherence to labyrinthine, constantly changing rules--happen to be in good standing must not be criticized or mocked because, well, they are in "good standing." Meanwhile, well-meaning (or dare I say mildly disturbed) editors who have failed to grasp WP's incomprehensible rules are free game for ridicule among the back-slapping ANI-dwellers. Your like will be eaten by your own spawn.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Are the rules really so incomprehensible that this individual for the past four years has attempted to get a page on himself written and retained on Wikipedia and failed every single time (except for a 4 month period between December 05 and March 06) does not understand that he does not meet with this website's guidelines for inclusion? Surely after the fourth time he would have gotten the point, but he's been through this fifteen times. And this is not counting the innumerable attempts made at WP:Deletion review with brand new accounts. However, I have dealt with equally as stubborn users as an administrator and as a regular editor (in times where I wished I had a button to make it stop). But still, fifteen deletions and several attempts at undeletion to only be met with failure should be enough to tell someone "Maybe I should not keep doing this".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, your woeful attempts to educate him (or even to suppress him) have been unsuccessful. Mr. Miyagi once said, "No such thing as bad student; only bad teacher." Perhaps you should try a different approach... like helping him write an article that won't get deleted.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet there is no reliable source out there that discusses the subject in any light. Good, bad, or chartreuse.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because you moved the page into your own user space does not mean that it will not still be under MFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Fat Man, you are being disruptive here. The simple fact is that John Bambenek has been trying to get his autobiography back on Wikipedia ever since it was deleted. What you have done is to proxy for a banned user (Bambenek is banned de facto, as an indefinitely blocked user who nobody will unblock, and they won't unblock him precisely because of his constant use of sockpuppets and block evasion to try to get his autobiography on Wikipedia). I suspect he views it as something of a game, I certainly get that impression from previous DRV requests. That's fine, an occasional resurgence of a running joke is not much of a problem, but what you have done is to escalate that into drama, which is not in any way helpful - either to your own cause or to his, if he genuinely does want an article on himself. You are already skating on thin ice with a drama to content ratio generally viewed as unacceptably high, so I strongly suggest that you simply drop this. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The term "drama" on WP is overused and ultimately meaningless. However, if you insist on abusing the theatrical metaphor, I suppose I prefer to think of my contributions less as humdrum daytime soaps and more like flamboyant burlesque or ghastly Grand Guignol routines. But those comparisons are neither here nor there. Your advice on what would best suit my "cause" and warmed-over watch-it-buster warnings are laughable to me. I operate on an elevated plane. Bambenek's motives are ultimately uninteresting to me, though I'm sure he's every bit the jolly fellow you suggest. What is crucial is that I find those reliable sources for the BAMbenek bio, so that all the JzG types will pout and protest and stamp their collective dinosaur foot in hilarious futility, just as they did when they were unable to stop the Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikipedia Review articles. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go trim my enormous moustache.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

How about thinking of them instead in these terms: stupidity that pisses everybody off to no good effect and may well get you banninated. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

JzG + Ryulong does not equal "everybody." Typical narcissism. I assure you that most Wikipedians find to me to be an utter delight--and they will be further delighted once my BAMbenek article is promoted to Featured status. Feel free to complain about me on one of those administrator noticeboards you and Durova frequent.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a quack reminder

Quack quack quack!

"FMWNCB, I'll unblock your IP in a minute, so that you are free to edit constructively without any potential accusations of block-evasion. I hope you'll reciprocate the good faith with all editors, and not let this unblock turn into egg on my face. Welcome back! Abecedare (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)"

Abecedare stuck his neck out for you. I have no idea on the merits of your latest troubles, but I think it might be a kindness to Abecedare if you ducked your head down a bit more.--Tznkai (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Gblock Tweak Durova et al on your own time.--Tznkai (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was....--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive the colloquialism. I meant to tweak Durova et al using a medium that isn't Wikipedia, if you insist on doing it at all.--Tznkai (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Bambenek sources

Do you need just the citations, or the full texts of the articles? I'm not sure if it's ok or not to post the full texts of newspaper/magazine articles, even in userspace, because they're copyrighted. I could probably email the full text of each to you if that's preferable and list the citations in your userspace for others to see. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just the citations, thanks. If I need the text I can hit the library or ask you for more info.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It occurred to me that it would probably help if we had a proper article about the News-Gazette before the Bambenek article can come to be.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be an article on The America's Intelligence Wire also. If I can find a source with information on that pub, I'll start an article on it today. Cla68 (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Usernames

Please either change your username, or never come back to Wikipedia. Otherwise, you are a flagrant liar, sir.

This is a ridiculous statement, of course. But so is your request that I change my signature - that I was using for two years before Shankbone ever registered his account. DS (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Srsly, I am, like, a super fat guy--slightly paunchy, anyway. See my reply here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You fragrant liar, you! A new meaning for FA. Eat up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Those are mind-blowing links, especially the first and the third. I frantically and sweatily conducted a Google Images search to determine of the author of the first link, Ms. Tobsha Learner, is remotely fap-able. Alas, she appears to appear only in publicity headshots with grossly unrealistic lighting, so I can't quite get a handle on her hawtness. As for the soggy noodle link.... I'm speechless.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Never underestimate the power of good lighting. If the cat's got your tongue, try here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, SG, enough with the bedroom advice. All I've ever needed to get into a broad's pants is a Spacemen 3 record and a bottle of Trockenbeerenauslese. As to the other topic, I first encountered the eminently fap-able publicity foto to which you linked when I Facebooked Alison several months ago and was perusing her friend list looking for hot chicks. That one stopped me dead in my tracks... who is that? Once I settled down and identified the object of my stares, I vowed never to quarrel with her onwiki again, as long as she keeps looking like that. You know... I'd like to hire someone to take my publicity photo. I was thinking of wearing a leather sombrero and an unbuttoned flannel shirt to play up my sweltering Latin machismo. What do you think?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't think of deconstructing the myth of "sweltering Latin machismo" on the talk page of the one to whom I'm hopelessly devoted, but I personally prefer my flannel shirts sans sombreros. Then I steal them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Either a) post a request to have your username changed, b) never come back, or c) pull your head out of your ass and stop being an idiot. DS (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I select none of the above? Of the of the three options, c) is by far the most unrealistic.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, why does everyone treat me as if I were The Fat Man Who Claimed He's Never Coming Back to Wikipedia. For the true story behind my username, please see one of my deleted user subpages (I forget which one). You're an admin after all. And change that signature, for chrissakes.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please send pics, TFM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed you had a concern regarding DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs)'s signature. I might not be an expert on the matter, but I frequently come across issues with signatures and the signatures guideline as a whole due to my bot. According to the signatures guideline, however, I'm having difficulty seeing how DS's signature is violating it; for, it would appear that DS is not attempting to impersonate another user, and furthermore, the signature is actually quite short in length while still providing the necessary/appropriate linking to the user's user and/or user talk page. If you feel that the signatures guideline should be changed, however, feel free to discuss the change on its talk page. Cheers. --slakr^\ talk / 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like an awful lot of trouble. Instead, can't people just do what I tell them to do?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you could easily graph the rapid increase in stupidity over the holidays on Wikipedia. Thank God tomorrow is Monday. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Query

Are you Artie Lange? --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Artie is much funnier than me and doesn't know how to work a computer.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

RFA?

Would you consider standing for adminship? GTD 00:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Only if Durova nominates me and Elonka co-nominates.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm so neglected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to be an admin, Sandy? If you and the Fat Man go to RFA together you will melt it. Yomangani^talk 02:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support per IAR. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Because ...

... while the commentary on WR is often illuminating, and always humorous, the brain power over there is sadly missing recently. No commentary on them, but WR seems to be dying as much as Wiki is, and the commentary over there lately often completely misses the point or is just blatantly wrong ... it didn't used to be like that :) It used to be a place where some of the more insightful posters really got to the bottom of important issues; instead, these days, it's become a place where everyone and their brother weighs in with uninformed commentary on everything including the kitchen sink, and air dirty laundry or visit grievances and carry grudges while completely missing important issues. In other words, it's the internet, where anyone can say anything, even if they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground. And I can't imagine the usefulness in engaging misinfo on *two* places at once, where the readers of one site are as obsessed as the readers they criticize on the other ! EveryKing is always entertaining, though :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Snooki

I have nominated Snooki, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snooki. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does THIS always happen to me? I did NOT write a BLP about SNOOKI. I LOVE snooki, and I would NEVER write a wiki article about her to RUIN HER LIFE!!!!!!1. All i did was create a redirect, thx. Go warn the person who actually wrote her bio, or just revert to the redirect. You people disgust me.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars for deletion The Fat man to David Shankbone

I have nominated Barnstars from FTMWNCB to David Shankbome, a barnstar that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this barnstar satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TFMWNCB is a butterfly. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the AWARD to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

If you need, you can contact me if unsure why you received this message; however I am a robot and as such dont give one flying fuck. Ceoil _―Œ^(talk) 15:96, 73 February 1821 (UTC)

What about the barnstar that DS gave me? I think you're just jealous that David Shankbone is my Facebook friend.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Your first mistake was in thinking that I think. Facebook is for girls. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well. Allrighty then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

. . . on your elevation to your new position! Do you need a new avatar?

• 
• 

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

My big boring life just got more interesting. Begin. Ceoil (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if the Fat Man's time as a Wikipedia Reviewer (as distinct from his new status as a Wikipedia reviewer) has shown us anything, it's that being granted special powers just makes him less likely to hang around. Steve Smith (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

For sure, trolling google answears and having babies has its own rewards, and I wish him well. Still, I would pay €3 to control the wiki account if he is ever short of €3. Hard cash. Ceoil (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

related

OK, now we are related... Grapebowl (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

reference desk tag

Please don't remove a legitimate tag on a problematic question. the tag is there to keep responses from straying into arguments or original research on a topic where people will likely be inclined to do so. thanks. --Ludwigs2 18:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop edit-warring, dude. if you have a problem with the template, take it up in talk. and don't make me do an wp:SPI on you and that IP. --Ludwigs2 18:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Do it, my child. Perhaps it will keep your industrious fingers occupied for a few minutes and temporarily keep you from marring legitimate discussions about fat people with condescending "Alert" templates.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There is some (ie., not too specific) suggestion that the OP (84.153.212.109) in question here may engage regularly in some "troll-like" behavior, Fat Man Who Never Came Back (see this thread at the RD talk page -- and I am not saying by any means conclusively that this IP is necessarily "our friend" there).

I thought the tag Lugwigs2 put up was appropriate in this case. And I only think so even more as 84.153 continues to respond in that thread in a rather troll-esque manner. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Don't vandalize like you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or you will be blocked from editing. VoteJagoffForMayor (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe YOU will be blocked becos i am like rubber u r like glue if u say things to me they bounce off me and stick to u.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey TFM, some people don't understand your humour, and some of those have teh sooper banhammur. Any chance you will consider sleeping off whatever you've been taking, before someone with the banhammur makes that decision for you? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yeah you're right; the indef block seems a little harsh, if you ask me. I was just doin' some reference desk action and making what I believed to be a constructive recommendation to the AN/I douches. Admins have evolved into ruler-wielding hardasses to a greater degree than when I was active a few years ago. I guess I'll have to use another accont or go back to editing from my iPhone if I want to keep using the Reference Desk. ho-hum.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Nakon 03:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather silly block, Nakon. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Who is Nakon, anyway? I don't remember voting for him.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Good question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI. Skomorokh 13:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you-- evidence of well reasoned opposes, but RFA is a vote. TFM, you are funnier when you stick to porcine humor; the "kids" aren't gettin' it, and neither are some of the adults. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

HI SANDY. Good work on helping to figure out that plagiarism stuff. YOU ARE A TOUGH SMRT LADY AND U ARE THE BEST!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am no longer The Fat Man Who Never Came Back that you knew and loved. I am now a different persona and I use bad grammer and spelling and things like this becaus i had bit of brain damaeg so I am not smrt leik i use to be but I AM STILL A COOL GUY. i hope you have a nice thanksgiving and things of this nature ok bye.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Block reduced

I've reduced the indefinite block to 48 hours. When the block expires, please refrain from disruptively editing the project. Thanks, Nakon 04:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

k thx.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

hello i am the fat man who never came back. blocks are preventative not punitive. so like i was blocked for say some rude things at AN/I like call ppl a "douche" (LOL) and things like this. but i wish to be unblock because i would like to do the REFERENCE DESK ONLY and maybe make some minor edit to sports articles. i will not say things at AN/I because i don't like those ppl anyway. because i promise not do say these rude things at AN/I, there is nothing to prevent. ALSO WE CAN MAKE A DEAL if i say more rude things at AN/I in the next 48 hrs you can block me for 9999999999999999999999 hours, but for now i just need to respond to some comments that ppl made to me at the REFERENCE DESK. ok thx

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=hello i am the fat man who never came back. blocks are preventative not punitive. so like i was blocked for say some rude things at AN/I like call ppl a "douche" (LOL) and things like this. but i wish to be unblock because i would like to do the REFERENCE DESK ONLY and maybe make some minor edit to sports articles. i will not say things at AN/I because i don't like those ppl anyway. because i promise not do say these rude things at AN/I, there is nothing to prevent. ALSO WE CAN MAKE A DEAL if i say more rude things at AN/I in the next 48 hrs you can block me for 9999999999999999999999 hours, but for now i just need to respond to some comments that ppl made to me at the REFERENCE DESK. ok thx |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=hello i am the fat man who never came back. blocks are preventative not punitive. so like i was blocked for say some rude things at AN/I like call ppl a "douche" (LOL) and things like this. but i wish to be unblock because i would like to do the REFERENCE DESK ONLY and maybe make some minor edit to sports articles. i will not say things at AN/I because i don't like those ppl anyway. because i promise not do say these rude things at AN/I, there is nothing to prevent. ALSO WE CAN MAKE A DEAL if i say more rude things at AN/I in the next 48 hrs you can block me for 9999999999999999999999 hours, but for now i just need to respond to some comments that ppl made to me at the REFERENCE DESK. ok thx |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=hello i am the fat man who never came back. blocks are preventative not punitive. so like i was blocked for say some rude things at AN/I like call ppl a "douche" (LOL) and things like this. but i wish to be unblock because i would like to do the REFERENCE DESK ONLY and maybe make some minor edit to sports articles. i will not say things at AN/I because i don't like those ppl anyway. because i promise not do say these rude things at AN/I, there is nothing to prevent. ALSO WE CAN MAKE A DEAL if i say more rude things at AN/I in the next 48 hrs you can block me for 9999999999999999999999 hours, but for now i just need to respond to some comments that ppl made to me at the REFERENCE DESK. ok thx |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}