Please do not clutter my talk page with "templates" or generic notices, such as a list of the "pillars" of Wikipedia or vandalism warnings (which will rarely be warranted, unless I've been Editing While Intoxicated). If you post something here, it should be something you wrote yourself. Everything else will be deleted.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
categories and sub-categories
Saw your note on the Category talk:Literary critics. Generally speaking, Wikipedia practice is that if all members of a subcategory would also be considered members of that category then articles that belong in the subcategory should have just the subcategory. Given the nature of Wikipedia, this isn't always the case, as you noticed with the Edmund Wilson article. There can be any number of reasons why an article might have a more generic category, but usually it involves the more specific category not having been around when the category was added to the article, or the article editor was unaware of the more specific category. If you notice such a situation, feel free to edit the article (as I just did to the Edmund Wilson article) so that it uses the more specific category. CaerwineCaerwhine 20:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that categories are extremely unselective. In the rare case of someone who is looking for every single literary critic found in Wikipedia, the added effort of trolling thru the sub categories isn't a problem. On the other hand, if someone is looking for exemplary examples of literary critics, that's what articles are for, assuming that they've been written. CaerwineCaerwhine 14:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
History fix
Listen, fat man, I do what I want, when I want. Luckily for you, I feel like helping you today. TacoDeposit 16:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your addition to the Enos (Book of Mormon) article since it wasn't clear that Krusty's limerick was specific to the Book of Mormon character rather than anyone named "Enos". Perhaps it should be included in the Enos disambiguation article instead. andersonpd 17:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD procedure
You're welcome.
For future reference, once you put the subst:afd template on the top of the article, there is a set of 3 wikilinks in text form for afd1, afd2, and afd3 for you to copy and paste.
afd1 is the one you just added, so it's already done.
afd2 goes on "this article's entry" at the AfD page. If you click the link for "this article's entry" in the AfD box, it will give you a blank page (unless the article has already been AfD'd once). Just paste the afd2 wikilink from the AfD template and where it says "Text=", add your reasoning and signature after the = and before the end curly brackets.
afd3 goes on the log page. Copy and paste it to the "log" link to the right of the three wikilinks that you've been copying and pasting. It should take you straight to the "edit this page" for the AfD log for today. Paste, make sure the pagename field is correct, and you're done.
Hope that helps. ju66l3r 16:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Thanks for the death threat
You're welcome. Well, you know how teenagers and other people like to have fights in parking lots and stuff like that? Well...
I actually hate myself for what I did to the Meg White talk page, but I was extremely angered by what I read on that talk page, me being an extreme White Stripes fan. Thanks though, and enjoy Wikipedia! --S-man 22:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your message "please contribute" was encouraging vandalism. You might like to consider if keeping the threat is helpful to the purpose of building an encyclopedia, which I presume is your interest in being here. Tyrenius 01:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the discussion, also I think you should read WP:Userpage. It's not a gem, you should see my deleted history. Look, this is something that is a serious issue and it's very troubling having it on your userpage. Yanksox 12:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest it would be prudent and show respect for the serious concerns raised about this, to leave it off your user page, until such time as you have a consensus of support for retaining such material. Tyrenius 12:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I don't have any "authority," I just have a couple extra buttons. Secondly, I'm pretty chipper, so I don't need to "lighten up." One of the key issues here is that you are feeding the trolls, and just giving them reason to vandalise. Also, having that up there does appear to violate WP:Userpage, in expressing polemical views. I find it troubling having comments like that up there, I think we have all been very uneasy about alot of recent events involving users that you were slightly connected with. Again, I am just one person, but take it to AN. I don't think it is approate to have something of that nature on your userpage, despite the immaturity of the post, it does exist. Yanksox 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick M. McCabe
Hi Fat Man, I am Patrick M. McCabe. Congratulations on finally deleting my article. However, you were incorrect in your assertations. I really do exist. And everything on my article is true.
Great work researching my books in libraries and book stores. You might have been less surprised not to find me there if you actually read the article a little more carefully. I claimed that I was an award-winning short story author, but it says right there on the page that the only award I've ever won is the "Headmaster's Prize for Essay" - a prize given out at my school.
Also, perhaps you should brush up on your French. My article claims critics have called me 'a modern day pied noir'. This sounds very literary, but actually it is simply a Fench term for a "French settler in Africa".
Finally, I also claim critics think I am an "Australian R.J. Stanley". However, R.J. Stanley's only literary achievement is co-writing my Chemistry text-book, whcih just happened to be lying around when I wrote the article. IN addition, he is Australian.
So I admit defeat. You outsmarted me. But you could have done it a lot quicker if you'd just read the article a bit more carefully. That would also have saved you a trip to the bookstore and library. Solipsist3 08:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that I never really read your article--though brief, the article iteslf was woefully uninteresting; as a writer, you may wish to affect a punchier prose style that will immediately sieze the reader's interest. What did get my attention was the way you were insinuating yourself into articles that people actually do read, articles like short story and Australian literature. Had you not done so, no one would have noticed your humdrum narcissism piece, and it would not have been deleted. And don't flatter yourself imagining that the Fat Man has the energy or to the inclination to leave his chair to go sifting through bookstores and libraries on your account. It took about 2 seconds to enter your name into Amazon and into my public libarary's online search engine--much quicker than it would have taken to read your article, and only slightly less time than it took to nominate it for deletion. Enjoy making wiseass contributions in bad faith. As a solipsist, surely you'll agree that Wikipedia was created expressly for your amusement; the Fat Man salutes you, and your sockpuppets too.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, Fat Man. It's nice to be noticed. I must say, though, that the whole idea was not to capture the reader's attention, so your criticism of my writing technique was a little unfair. Also, I must say that your accusation of me using what you WIkipedia folk like to call 'sock puppets' is completely unfounded. The only name I have ever used on Wikipedia is Solipsist3. I'm disappointed that you did not go to a real bookstore or library to check out my books. But I must commend you and your brethren on the sterling job you did of recovering every one of my Wikipedia references. I was named on quite a number of lists, but all references are gone. Is there some trick to this, or did you and your fellow good Wikipedians tirelessly search for and destroy every last remnant of my existence? Solipsist3 07:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you spend less effort wasting your own and others' time over these ventures, and get on with some serious editing. We are not here to indulge your whims. Tyrenius 15:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Fat Man, what’s with this Tyrenius guy? He pops up everywhere criticising Wikipedia experimenters such as myself. He even criticised you just because you left death threats on your user page. Who cares? It’s your user page after all. I thought it was a good tactic to take the ‘thrill’ out of such vandalism. Anyway, my question still stands. How did you find me in all those lists and articles? Solipsist3 01:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pornography
First let me apologize, certainly many of the things that you mention are true. I should have reserved more time for editing so that it would not end up being as clumsy.
As for the non-sequitir, as you call it, I thought I had put it in, realized what you had done, and pulled it out. Please feel free to pull it out again, if I don't get to it first.
As for the article length, I have concerns also, but there was a great deal of valuable detail removed. Granted, some of it could certainly be edited out as not really directly relevant. Again something I will get to, if you don't first. My main concern, certainly not related to you, is that alot of detail has been changed recently that reduced the tone of the article from one of balanced and informational to one of almost making it anti-pornographic rhetoric. I ackolwedge that there should be a place in the article for refencing those concerns (although the Wikipedia article on anti-pornography shouyld have most of the detail, not here). The article should give information about the subject to people interested without being overly long. The net effect also is the de-emphasis of the anti-pornography section so that it is a balanced portion, rather than dominating the article.
Mid-way in editing I realized I had inadvertently picked up an old version. This is truely, what you described as clumsy. That's perhaps how the religious objection portion got re-inserted.
I do take your efforts as good faith, and apologize for stepping on your toes. I'll be more careful next edit.
Regards to you Atom 16:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you come and take a look at these basketball players who keep getitng added please?
Rik Smits, Shawn Bradley, David Robinson, Tim Duncan.
(Halbared 07:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I'm sorry we didn't see eye to eye recently, but I wasn't of course the only one here. I do not think that you had any malicious intent. However, I would like to congratulate you on your work over Patrick M. McCabe and offer you something else to fill your user page instead. Tyrenius 16:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No! I didn't delete all messages only these messages who are a little bit critism.
Star etc
I can assure you the star wasn't a joke! I thought you did a nice job there and deserve some recognition, also that you had a gap to fill... I'm happy to accept the current arrangment re. retaining mere insults, but not threats of violence. I speak only for myself here. You're welcome to draw anyone else's attention to this, if you wish. I suggest you might consider putting any serious threats on AN to make admins aware. There is the possibility of them being followed up by the police. In the previous case, I emailed the school head to draw his attention to what had happened. Tyrenius 16:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS Thanks for contacting me re your insult posts. This shows good sense, obviously, in the circumstances. Tyrenius 17:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Fat Man! Really well deserved. I have to say, I agree with Tyrenius here. And I might also compliment you on your insults. In the Patrick M. McCabe article abovve, you did a magnificent job of insulting me, and more recently again performed well with your 'misguided youth' rant. I wish I could insult as well as you. Also, if it wasn't for you, that article might have slipped through 'the web'. Great job. Solipsist3 10:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think when Tyrenius referred to my "insult posts" he was referring to the contributions of vandals that now decorate my talk page, not my multiple "rants" [2],[3] directed toward Mr. McCabe, which were never (primarily) intended to be insulting. As for your sarcastic praise of my vituperative virtuosity, it's unwarranted; I'm no Don Rickles, but if you wish to be, I suggest practice, practice, practice (just not on wikipedia; that would probably be considered uncviil). Thanks, by the way, for correcting my typos.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Fat Man, don't put yourself down - stick to putting me down. Those compliments weren't sarcastic! You really made me feel guilty with your rant about 'misspent youth' and your earlier one about 'narcissism' was pretty good too. No worries with the typos, but ironically enough, you spelt uncivil wrong just before you complimented me about the typos. I really hope there are no typos in this posting now. Solipsist3 04:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bassists
Good work on your tireless efforts to keep the list of notable bassists succinct. It seems lots of people have strange ideas about what constitutes notable. "Country" Bushrod Washington 04:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia
I am quite familiar with both of those pages and I happen to disagree with both of them. Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles is only a guideline, and one that passed with only 62% of votes in favor of it, and I feel that many users who would like to have a say in that discussion did not get to (I myself did not get to participate because I was limiting my Wikipedia activities during the time of the discussion and did not find out about it until these toomuchtrivia tags started appearing). Wikipedia:Trivia is only a proposed guideline, anybody can create one.
Yes, it is true that fans like to read fun facts about the TV shows and movies they enjoy.
If you pay attention to my arguments this has nothing to do with them. I do not like fan cruft.
This guideline in a nutshell: Lists of facts, as found in trivia sections, are better presented within the context of the text rather than in a section of unrelated items.
Which I fundamentally disagree with. Some information is better presented in trivia section form. Just as some information is better presented in a table (in fact, I think everything said on that page could just as easily be applied to tables), some information naturally leads itself to being included in a trivia section. Certainly many trivia sections contain some information that should be integrated into the main prose of the article, but not all.
However, Wikipedia articles are not the place to display those facts indiscriminately, in list form.
I would agree with you here, but I feel that in every case I have editted the facts were not an indiscriminate collection in list form. They were relevant, interesting facts that were best presented in a list form.
And finally I would like to point out that there is not one universal definition of what is too much trivia. For some articles having even one item of trivia would be too much, for others a rather large section might serve the article best, the nature of the topic of the article determines how much information should be presented in the trivia section. Suoerh2 07:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mullet picture
There is business at the front. I think the party at the back is exclusive. Rintrah 14:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bohemianism
My bad and I beg your forgiveness. I didn't mean to delete W'burg completely, just got distracted in the rewrite. Have restored in the context of the new edit. Charles T. Betz 18:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
As a new user you may be unaware of the fact that in years past the practice was to place all general sources in "external links". Wikipedia is improving its standards and that's a good thing. But just because older articles used different standards doens't mean that material is unsourced. If you'd like to bring the article up to higher standards then I heartily support that effort. -Will Beback 19:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will improve the referencing (first I have some errands to run). But do understand that this effort will likely result in the deletion of material for which I cannot find a reference (don't worry, I'll look in the External Links before deleting anything).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do your best. There may be additional sources available that aren't already in the article. The topic is pretty cut-and-dried, so we shold be able to source everything. Cheers, -Will Beback 20:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Noticed your NN patrolling of the bassist list. Just wondering if you had time/interest in joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guitarists fold. An ever growing group of Wikipedians interesting in editing/improving any/all guitar/guitarist(which, of course includes all bass guitar/bass guitarist) articles. If you feel you can contribute, your participation would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! Anger22 18:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AK-47 linkspam
There was already an advertisement in the links for this book, therefore it's linkspam. Further, it was a digest of the book and books should be placed in the reference section, not under links. Larry's trying to sell his books.--Asams10 17:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks
I felt you should know that the following has been used as an example of a personal attack [4] in a discusion on the personal attack intervention page. Your comments on it would be appreciated.-Psychohistorian 20:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In terms of deleting the "AfD" nomination on the page, that was a good start, but sometimes people get testy about that, though the person who put it up was an unregistered user. I'm just writing to you here asking you to remember to state your opinion on that article's Talk page, just so if someone else nominates it for deletion we have some record of things done right and proper and, err... democratic. JesseRafe 12:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was acting on the Proposed Deletion template instructions which say "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason." I also explained my actions in the edit summary (also a valid record). However, if that upsets editors, I will be sure to justify my actions on the Talk page in the future.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick M. McCabe again
Forgive me, Fat Man! It was a moment of frivolity, but one I can't say I regret as it got me back in contact with my favourite Wikipedia pal! Fat Man! How have you been? It's been far too long. I'm so glad you tracked down your old mate Solipsist3. How exactly did you stumble across my latest venture anyway? Merry Christmas Fat Man! Solipsist3 00:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Richards
"If you are going to revert controversial edits without truly participating in the discussion, at least make sure that the language you're reverting to makes sense.
"Michael Anthony Richards (born July 24, 1949) is an Emmy Award-winning, American comedic actor, three-time Emmy Award winner, writer, producer, and best known for playing Kramer on the television show Seinfeld."
Did you read that sentence to your yourself before you reverted? I know you didn't write it, but it looks and sounds awful. Taking sides in a content dispute is one thing, but butchering the readability of a paragraph is quite another.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)"
First its not that horrible, as you make it out to be, yes its not the best, but its certainly not butchering anything. Second the article existed a whole 6 to 7 minutes in the state that you quote, as the redundancy was corrected by netscott in a matter of minutes. Yes i did read it i did notice that it was redundant a fact that was discussed earlier. I was ready to correct it, but netscott beat me to it. Its not the end of the world an article existed in a slightly inferior state for a couple of minutes, take it easy. Geza 14:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am very suspicious that 81.182.xxx.xxx, the anon user responsible for controversial edits and 3RR violations to the Michael Richards page is non other than User:Kgeza67. Almost the minute the article was semi-protected, Kgeza67 returned and began performing very similar edits to the anon user. Circumstantial evidence seems to support my suspicion. Is this enough reason for me to bring this to the attention of the admins who monitor Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possible: see this. Note the nationality associated with that name and note the nationality of the IP addresses. (→Netscott) 19:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently a bit too busy to do so myself but I would strongly recommend that you submit User:Kgeza67 for WP:RFCU to establish this or otherwise make a posting on WP:ANI with your suspicions. (→Netscott) 19:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also rather tied up at the moment, but when I get around to it, this sounds like a good idea.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HaH!
I like your username too, it's hilarious (At least when I'm sleep-deprived). 68.39.174.238 06:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re: Redirect discussion
The talk page of the redirect is the best place to discuss it. If that doesn't achieve consensus, then RFD is an appropriate place to bring it. RFD is primary deletion related, but it is also used for discussions to generate broader community consensus. In general, however, if there is argument over where a redirect should go & both are valid options, then a disambiguation page is the right approach. -- JLaTondre 15:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. I have noticed however, that one of the "guiding principles" on RfD is "RfD is not the place to resolve editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article." I don't want to rankle anyone who believes in this principle. So I have made the article in dispute a dab page for now, but I might propose a page move in the future.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for jumping in there. I've just about had my fill of that nonsense...every time I calmly offer yet another citation, it's greeted with "you're wrong" and assorted emotional outbursts. -- Jim Douglas(talk)(contribs) 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I dont agree with all Thoric says and certainly dont want a pro cannabis pov article, whatever pov I may express on my user page, SqueakBox 19:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How interesting. The Yahoo! one doesn't surprise me. Yahoo!'s celebrity biography pages (not just sports, but music celebs and others) are notoriously erroneous very frequently. They seem to do just about zero fact-checking over there. Would have expected better, though, from ESPN. Mwelch 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Short story
Fat man, I wasn't trying to delete edits by other people in the short story article. The problem is that someone deleted large sections of the article a while back in what appears to be simple vandalism. Just trying to reinsert those sections. Anyway, instead of just reverting I physically went back in and reinserted the missing info. Best,--Alabamaboy 15:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a great deal of important content (including some sections I contributed to myself) was removed from the article, so it's good that you're now restoring them manually, without overwriting the hard work of editors who have tried to improve the article since those sections were removed.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now made the changes. Please let me know if I deleted anything you think was valuable. The only section I deleted was the history section which was shorter and more POV than the original section was. The deleted section contained POV statements like "There are the stories that stay with people forever and then there are also some stories that are forgotten." While I won't debate the poetic truth in statements like that, they don't belong in the article, especially when the article originally had a more detailed and factual history section. Let me know what you think. Best,--Alabamaboy 15:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3RR
You should read the full history of the page List of very tall men instead of popping up like this. RCS 19:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following every comment on that talk page for months. Nothing you'll find there will justify your edits, nor your disregard for WP:3RR.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know what ? You are telling lies. If you had followed something somewhere, you'd have noticed that it was i who started reverting the IP (later becoming an account), not the other way round. What's really on your mind ? RCS 07:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It takes two to tango, and your "he started it" argument is infantile. You should both be blocked. As an established user, you have less of an excuse to ignore one of the fundamental Wikipedia principles than does your friend with a new account.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you hunger for me to get blocked will not be stilled. You'll have to find something else. RCS 15:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Block
The sockpuppeteer comment refers to accounts Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk·contribs), Man Never Came Back (talk·contribs), and The fat man never (talk·contribs). I don't remember what they did (it was several months ago), so I had to check their deleted edits; it seems that they were repeatedly re-creating a deleted article. I presume that they were impersonators and not operated by you (given that you reverted a removal of the deletion notice from the article by one of them). Correct? - Mike Rosoft 16:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that clarifies the story. I remember what happened--those were all impersonators of me. I nominated an article for deletion, which made the author of the article (a talented electric bass player from Spain) very upset. He set up a bunch of accounts with names similar to mine; mostly, though, he just blanked my user page anonymously, which he still does from time to time. I hope he still finds time to practice with all the time he spends vandalizing. Anyway, I understand the confusion.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Richards
Hey, Fat Man! I'm asking you to Come Back! Hey! I'm thinking it may be time to start paring down the Michael Richards article a bit, as it is no longer a current event. I posted a note on the article's talk page. I wanted to get some sense of concensus before rocking the boat. Cleo123 00:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Borat
Sorry for the confusion, but someone else had wrecked a reference on an edit in the Production section. That was what I was refering to in the edit summary.--Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 14:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So we are back to 6ft 5, exactly where i had the page started. You shouldn't have interfered as you have. I will ask for the demotion of the administrator who so willingly followed your whim. You never know. RCS 16:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One can only hope you've learned your lesson--namely, to achieve consensus before making drastic edits; also, follow the 3RR even if some other fool happens to be breaking it. Since your block, consensus on the issue has been achieved. Prior to that, consensus had not been established, and your deletions were highly inappropriate. Furthermore, your intemperate tendency to hurl ethnic insults probably won't do much for your campaign to desysop the admin who rightfully blocked you.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to get into a fight, but could one of you put it on deletion review for me. Thanks.--T. Anthony 17:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discounting votes
Your recent "discounted" vote comments were obnoxious. I find your claim that you discounted the majority of keep votes because they were "based on no arguments applicable to Wikipedia policy or guideline" disingenous.
For example, you "discounted" my following comment: "Keep. Deletion nominators are relentless. This is a problematic but still salvageable article; it's way too soon for another afd; isn't this inappropriate?"
Actually, that particular concern is addressed in official Wikipedia policy:
Repeated attempts to have an article deleted for non-policy reasons may sometimes be considered abuse of process and/or disruptive, and the article may be speedy kept.
Please don't respond by saying to take it up with Deletion review or that I should have included the word "speedy" to make it clear which policy I was referring to; I really don't really care what happens to that frivolous article you deleted; I'm saying your dismissiveness toward many established editors was ill-considered and will rub many the wrong way.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 11:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't point you towards deletion review for this issue, it's a very valid one, and I do understand your point - I apologise if this came off as dismissive (or obnoxious ... really?). As the closer, I am required to exercise my judgement to the best of my abilities. It was clear that there was a vast majority of editors that considered the deletion discussion to be valid (nb, not referring to the actual deletion here, merely the judgement of the community on whether or not the AFD discussion should have taken place). This was implicit, in the volume of arguments made both for deletion and for keeping. Calls for the discussion to be closed early as a (speedy) keep were in a considerable minority, and failed to adress any of the issues that led to the AFD discussion occurring. As it was clear that the discussion was a valid one that warranted taking place, any argument based solely on '(speedy) keep as AFD is not valid' was discounted. Does this make sense? If it doesn't, then I'm afriad that is the point at which I would have to point you towards deletion review. Proto::► 12:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DRV for List of tall men
I intend to propose List of tall men for deletion review. However, in light of the extent of your participation in the AfD discussion and your discussion with the closing admin, I wanted to first present my rationale for the DRV to you (and to User:T. Anthony) for comment so that it has the best chance of succeeding at DRV. Thanks, Black Falcon 19:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was deleted even though no consensus was reached. 17 users supported deletion (one of which was simply "per nom", but was not discounted) and 17 voted to keep the article (a few of the "keep" votes were discounted by the closing administrator). Now, granted that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but AfDs should be decided through consensus and not polling. 17 vs. 12 or 13 hardly seems to be a consensus.
The administrator's justification for the decision is that:
The arguments to keep are very poor in comparison with those for deletion. Nobody has succesfully refuted the chief reason for deletion - that the list is subjective and there is no accepted single definition of what to be 'tall' means.
However, a number of users directly addressed and refuted the chief reason for deletion--the "subjectivity" of the term tall. See, for instance, the comment by User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back against a "fruitless semantic exercise":
NOR applies to "new definitions of pre-existing terms;" it does not preclude the variable, reasonable interpretation of very common adjectives.
The criticism of the subjectivity of the term "tall" blurs the distinction between a criterion that is subjective and one that has alternatives. Notability could, in theory, have any number of possible (and plausible) definitions, but WP:Notability is an objective criterion. Likewise, the term tall could have varying interpretations, but it can also be an objective criterion (reached through consensus and verified by external sources).
At the least, the article should be restored so that it could be renamed to List of the tallest men, which could list the tallest men ever, in specific countries/regions, at particular times in history, etc. (this is really a matter for that article’s talk page).
I would support a deletion review. The only thing I would add is that all this bitching about subjectivity sets a dangerous precedent. It's now permissible to delete any article, as long a handful of editors complain that one of the words in the article title is subject to interpretation.
We can now start arguing about what "early" or "black" means and whether something/someone is early or black enough to warrant inclusion on any of these lists. Should all the lists now be deleted because they contain such a subjective term? How about the List of unusual deaths (see also [9], listed above) I mentioned during the tall men AfD discussion? List of famous people who died young? List of fat actors? Nice knowing you. What about List of metropolitan areas by population? There's constant griping and disagreement on its talk page about how we should define a metropolitan area. And since were discussing the List of tall women article, why don't we obliterate the List of tallest buildings and structures in the world? In my view, the closer--along with many of the delete voters--were mis-using the term original research, and we if applied their standards to hundreds of other list and non-list articles, a significant percentage of Wikipedia content would be stand danger of deletion.
It's darkly amusing that so many here prefer outright destruction (easy) to consensus building (hard work).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noted to the closing admin on his talk page (very bottom) that this paves the way for deleting any article involving a relational adjective (e.g., all of the lists in List of "largest" articles) and am awaiting a response. Black Falcon 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Largest' and 'tall' are different superlatives ... the equivalent would be 'largest' and 'tallest'. List of tallest men would probably be ok. A simple, non-controversial cut off, such as '20 tallest men alive', '20 tallest men ever', and 5 tallest notable people in certain professions where height is noteworthy and relevant (e.g. NBA) could then be created. Proto::► 10:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20 is an abitary cut off, no different from picking 7 feet as the cut of point on the deleted list. Personally I believe it ought to have stayed. Oh well. MathmoTalk 07:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have only just noticed the deletion of the article, a true shame, not just for the deletion, but the way it seems to have been handled and executed. Perhaps you were right in your original appraisal of those first edits to undermine it?Halbared 19:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of balance
The bit of balance that you brought lastly to the editing on Michael Richards is a welcome sight. Take it easy. (→Netscott) 00:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice of intention. Sudden Jihad Syndrome is a term that will get used more and more as time goes on. I appreciate your Liberal attempt to surpress the truth. I know you know no other way. God bless you. Prester John 06:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just Want to Commend You
For responding with so much civility towards what must be one of the most hypocritical personal attacks I've seen on WP. I'm still laughing at this gem from her ad hominem edit: "Otherwise, let's try to discuss the content of this article." and the latest contrived nugget of wisdom: "It is also very difficult to assume good faith from someone who makes so many uncivil remarks targeted towards any editor who disagrees with his point of view." Though in the spirit of AGF I'm inclined to attribute such blatant hypocrisy not as much to malice as to delusion/incompetence. In any case, just letting you know other editors (and reading between the lines I get the sense even the admin is getting tired of their act as well) are laughing along with you. Cheers. Tendancer 14:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the acknowledgment. It is important to me that others perceive my disposition as civil.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Babels
Where are the babels? MM 13:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your bold culling of the Black Comedy article. I'm embarassed to say I've been watching it for a few months, now, and have been fretting over what to do with it. Thank you for doing what I was too afraid to do. :) --Mdwyer 01:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Richards
Thank you so much for the kind note you left on my talk page. I want to extend my sincerest appologies for my part in our misunderstanding. Moving forward, I will do my best to assume good faith on your part. The work process on that article has just been so contentious, that perhaps my own perspective has become a bit askew. There is no "connection" between User:Bus stop" and myself other than sharing some similar editorial views. I took offense at your "dynamic duo" remark although it struck a deep chord in me. I do feel, in many ways, that for some months now it has fallen on Bus stop and myself to defend Michael Richards against a host of "attackers".
As I'm sure you realize, Bus stop and I are both relatively new, inexperienced editors, who have had a very difficult time defending our position within WIkipedia's guidelines - which for me are "Chinese" to some extent. For goodness sake, I didn't even know what a "sockpuppet" was when the Kgeza problems started! (I had to look it up.) When one is still learning about Wikipedia's editorial policies, it is very difficult to reasonably defend your editorial position, when you are also being personally attacked for not knowing all the guidelines. Perhaps, this has led me to be a bit "paranoid" in my assessments. I hope you understand the place I am coming from and I appologize if I have misjudged your motivations.
I know Michael, not very closely, but well enough to know that he really is not a racist. I
understand that I cannot introduce my own "original research" or personal knowlege to the article and I have not done so. I will say, however, that there is a lot more to this story that has not been covered by the press. Because I do know Michael, I was very hesitant to edit the article at all - but there seemed to be no one defending him other than Bus stop. The fact that Bus stop was taking a terrible beating from other editors, led to my uncomfortable decision to enter the frey. It was a very sad moment of realization for me that a complete and total stranger out in cyberspace was to be my sole ally defending Michael against the hoard.
In some ways, your edits to the opening sentence of his biography strike to the core of the tragedy. Although most actors dream of a successful sitcom, few realize that the work can rob them of not only their personal identity but any chance of a future career. The sad truth is that when an actor becomes overly identified with a particular character in the public eye - he is no longer hirable. This is something that Michael has struggled with. The lack of success connected with the Michael Richards Show is firmly rooted in the audience's resistance to see him as anything other than Kramer, not in any fault in him as a performer. Unfortunately, actors, as a group, are very sensitive people and these types of career "set-backs" can be profoundly degrading, demoralizing and psychologically disabling. Michael is a wonderful, warm human being who made a terrible mistake. In many ways, he will pay for that mistake forever. We can either choose to continue punishing him, or we can give him the same kind of break we would wish for ourselves. I see no point in throwing salt in the wounds.
In any case, I hope that I have been able to provide you some insight as to my perspective. I hope that we can make a fresh start here. I look forward to having a productive and positive working relationship with you in the future. Happy editing! Cleo123 07:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ape Language
Hello The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. I noticed you created a category for ape-language subjects and titled it "purportedly linguistic apes". I worry that this title is not neutral (per NPOV guidlines on wikipedia:categorization). Websters defines "puported" as "to have the often specious appearance of being, intending, or claiming." The success of ape-language projects is disputed, and there are notable scientists who would disagree about ape linguistic aptitute having a "specious appearence" (The Washoe and Ai projects claim to be moderate linguistic successes, in fact). And in the case of Nim Chimpsky, the primary researchers called off the project and declared the chimpanzee unable to learn language. So who is "purporting" that Nim Chimpsky is a linguistic ape? Certainly not the scientists invloved with Nim. And why should said "puporter's" judgement outweigh Nim's own researcher's conclusions with regard to this encyclopedic categorization?
I agree that that the name of the category raises concerns and would happily endorse a suggestion for a better, more neutral-sounding name. Do you have such a suggestion? However, I hope that the category itself is not deleted outright, because I find it most useful to place all apes that have reportedly learned language under one umbrella, which I believe is a notable subcategory of both Famous apes and Animal intelligence.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 11:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please take another look at the article
Hi The Fat Man Who Never Came Back,
Please take another look at the Niggardly article. I started googling and found a lot of new information about other incidents and interesting comments in the controversy, so I added them in. I think it's a much better article now, certainly much larger and broader in scope. The article could still use some changes (including to some of the additions I made), but I think if you take another look at it you'll like it and may change your mind. Noroton 23:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said in your edit comment: "courtesy self-revert after reading your comments about {{hndis}} on your user page, but I'm still not sure everyeone shares your view on how this template should be used" -- amen to that; I'm in the initial stage of preparing a guideline proposal for articles that list people by name (full name, given name, surname, whatever). There appears to be constant discussion (and disagreement) over whether such lists run contrary to WP:NOT#DIR and how much overlap they should have with disambiguation pages. A lot of the discussion, though, seems to take place in AfDs and in the Disambiguation style guide talk page, which I don't think reaches all the interested parties. I'll drop another brief note here when I get the proposal done. -- JHunterJ 11:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About Imus
You made some points about Whitlock but you fail to remove all other examples from the article which much worse. Just look at the lead which contains :"over racial and gender slurs he made on air." without sourcing. Ho as a gender slur and nappy-headed as a racial slur? All this without sourcing? Thats what exactly is NPOV about you don't apply the rules selectively. My edit was based on a reliable published source and I worked exactly for NPOV not against it. The article in it's current state has nothing from Imus supporters, like O&A, Bill Maher, Rosie etc, that's not what NPOV is about. Whitlock is not even a supporter, just didn't buy all the phony outrage. So i would appreciate if you would remove gender slur, racial slur (unsourced) first and then cite NPOV to me and remove my sourced edit. Also I won't make any comments about you but expect the same in return. Ecostaz 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TFMWNCB, you may find this of interest - follow the link: User:Ecostaz. Meanwhile, I don't know if you're current on Talk:Don Imus, and I don't know what your opinion might be about this, but I'd like to know if you think that calling the comments "racist and sexist" needs to be handled the way "Ecostaz" and this new editor "Doc Gratis" insist, since every article that I've found that talks about the Imus event characterizes them as such. Just asking for an opinion - wherever it falls. Thanks Tvoz|talk 17:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was confident Ecostaz was a sockpuppet the moment I encountered him on the Michael Richards article a couple months ago, but it wasn't until yesteday that an admin took the time to confirm my supsicion. I'm sure he'll be back in a new incarnation (interestingly, his most recent personas exhibit sporadic good behavior alongside the more familiar mischief and disruptive edits). In any case, I'll check out the current talk page and weigh in if the discussion still interests me.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. thanksTvoz|talk 19:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked indef as vandalism only account. See user's talk page. Tyrenius 01:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your endorsement under it would be helpful. Shame though. He was endearing, but wasted time and undermined wiki's credibility. Tyrenius 04:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fat Man. I have returned with this incredibly subtle new user name. Don't bother banning it, as I don't plan on using it again. Thanks for calling me 'amusing' and 'high-brow' on Tyrenius' user page. It did my ego the world of good, and I know you've always been very concerned with my ego. Solipsist4 11:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious S/N
Hilarious user name. I am just so sorry you have to deal with people who make fun of it! GautamDiscuss 19:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the recognition. I'm thinking about creating a short list on my user page of other wikipedians with amusing or clever user names.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Your removal of the sort-of disambiguation statements on those articles. I'm not the one who added them, and I was on the fence about whether or not they were useful, so I'm okay with their deletion. But it's no joke: People do confuse those two authors. Gass even wrote an essay about it—"William Gaddis and his Goddamn Books", included in his book A Temple of Texts. (Why would anyone make fun of your handle? I like it.) Best --ShelfSkewedtalk 03:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure people have confused these post-modern authors before. But this is hardly a Thomas Wolfe/Tom Wolfe situation. Mostly I disliked the "similar author" part, which I thought to be slightly jokey, unfair and very POV.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 10:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are these chaps well known in basketball? Should they be on the list of tall men?Halbared 08:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both were solid--and unusually tall at 7 foot 4--players who had a few very good seasons. Sampson was the more notable of the two and made several All Star appearances. I haven't been to the list of tall men for a while, so it would depend what the current consensus is for basketball player inclusion. If the rules are fairly strict (e.g. must be in the Basketball Hall of Fame, League MVP multiple times or must have been named one of the official NBA 50 Greatest Players), leave them out. If the rules are somewhat looser (e.g., multiple All Star appearances), include Sampson but not Smits.
My personal preference would also be to leave the most extremely tall players (Manute Bol, George Muresan) on the list due to their height, even if they are not considered among the all time greats. Depends on consensus for inclusion.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Serious Business
Could you please do one of the following with the power forwards page:
1.) Add back the notable present power forwards
2.) Delete the notable present ones from all other positions
3.) Somehow standardize all positions
I don't like the power forward being the one exception to the rule. How about current members of Team USA AND 2006 All-Stars? Can't get more present than that.
I appreciate your effort to maintain the page, but please keep it standard with other position pages.
I just received permission via email from a copyright holder to use a photograph in one or more Wikipedia article. I am aware of how to upload a photo, but how do I convince others that I indeed have permission to use the photo in question?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Don't post the e-mail. First of all, you had to have asked if the image could be used under a free license. Free license must allow all of the following, for both the image itself as well as any modified versions based on it: Modification, redistribution, use for any purpose, including commercial purposes. The author can choose any free license they prefer. The only restrictions allowable are proper attribution of the creator and the requirement that derivative works are similarly licensed. If you just asked, "Can I use it on Wikipedia," that is not enough. You must ask "Can I use it under a free license." They can specify which license they want. If they said they release it under a free license, e-mail the Open Ticket Request System as described here. RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know Rostam
Dear fat man
Do you know Rostam? He is an honorable man in one of important mythological books (Shahnameh). Why did you revert it? I reverted again. Homer's picture is in the article. Rostam looks better morally and in the aspect of power.--Soroush83 18:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure he's important in Persian myth, but he's not real. I will concede that one could make the argument that Homer didn't really exist either; perhaps they should both removed.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
!!!!Arabian myth!!!!!????? It is NOT important at all in Arabian myth. Persian mythology, Persian. Shahnameh is one of the best sellers in USA in 2006.(I'm not sure the 6th or 7th rate.) He is like Homer. But I think there is no matter they remain. And I believe pictures like Genghis Khan should be remained. And one like Hitler shouldn't be there however they isn't but how Genghis Khan be there?--Soroush83 19:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I carelessly referred to the wrong regional mythology. I'm sure Rostam would belong in a gallery of mythological men, but he doesn't belong in list of historical men. Khan and Hitler had a great impact on history, so their inclusion would be much easier to justify.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No matter! But I'm sure there are more important men that some of the people have been there. For example Cyrus the Great. He is one of the most important people in Jewish and had an emperor bigger and more honorable than a lot of other ones. Anyway, I don't know much about the situation of pictures of that article. But I suggest to change some of them or add these ones. You do it if you feel it is need. I think it is. Cheers.--Soroush83 19:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I added added an image of Cyrus the Great to the gallery, since I feel that period of time was under-represented.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Moore
I am the one who wrote the new intro as a compromise to someone who wanted to add left-wing and political activist. However, proper sourcing has never been established for either of those two terms and that is why the intro looks as it does. Really, there have been no useful contributions to that section other than a quick google search. So, when you find the time check out the page history and the talk page. Really, either version works for me as long as everything is sourced and set out as neutrally as possible. Thanks for you input to the article. Turtlescrubber 23:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If you know when the name change might of occurred, you can view 500 edits and do a Ctrl + F on the renameuser log. Seems somewhat useful--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Taco, you can't sort by user name. But you can use Crtl + F to locate a particular new name or old name. They are both listed.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're also unhappy at the way some well known admins are changing username without fully disclosing it (including User:Nick who has additionally moved and then deleted his talk page, and had it protected for a while) you may wish to see Wikipedia_talk:Changing_username/Usurpations. I've complained about this practice but seem to be in a minority of one :) --kingboyk 16:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now consider it a minority of two. I just left a comment on that page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IRC cloak request
I am SadFatMan on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/The-Fat-Man-Who-Never-Came-Back. Thanks.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, TFMWNCB. Sorry for misunderstanding your edit on the list of unusually time-signatured songs. I do not, however, understand your most recent edit to the article: there is definitely a song called "Concerning the UFO Sighting..." [etc.] by Sufjan Stevens, and it certainly seems like it has an unusual time signature (although I have never been able to calculate it precisely). I assume now that you removed it because it is not in 65/16, but I am very sorry if I have misunderstood you this time. --3M163//Complete Geek 06:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just listening to the song again (good song, by the way), and I acknowledge that the rhythm is pretty mysterious, though I am not musical enough to figure out exactly what's going on. Mainly, I get tired of original research and would like to see a source for such a silly claim. That anyone would characterize a time signature as 65/anything can sound a little ridiculous.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 11:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citation Needed Challenge
I have also placed this on the discussion page of the Tentacle Rape talk page. I am posting it on yours as a curtesy.
This is in regards to the statement:
Much of the genre also consists of domination/humiliation and bondage fetishes, since the victim typically is restrained by the appendages.
This statement is denoted with "citation needed" at the end. I previously removed the tag, commenting on the need, but you restored it with "no original research" as the justification. I am questioning the logic. One need not ask for citation on something so obvious when the source material is seen. By its very nature, tentacle rape is domination and bondage. Restraint of the victim (and the byproduct of humiliation and spirit breaking) is the norm rather than the exception. As tentacle rape is not a major sociopolitical or behavioral study, one will not find a scientific panel review study on the subject. There are Japanese articles which discuss tentacle rape (eroge hobby magazines) – however Wikipedia has guidelines against foreign language source; and this poster's translation of material could/would be given some sort of Wiki tag against it. This said: it is simply easier to use Primary Sources as "proof" to the sentence.
Primary sources: the entire range of tentacle rape titles. Anime includes Legend of the Overfiend or La Blue Girl. Manga includes "tentacle rape" chapters from titles released by Crimson Comics and Hellbunna (two adult manga lines that are found on illegal download sites; used only due to greater ease for English speakers to find them). Games can be located from the catalog of "specialist" publishers such as Black Cyc and Tinkerbell. List goes on and on.
Verifiability: Within reason, tentacle rape titles can be acquired by individuals of legal age. Japanese direct titles can be ordered from importers such as Himeyashop. Translated titles can be ordered from companies such as Peach Princess and G-Collection. Review of said material, will prove statement is factual. No different than if someone said, if you go outside and look at typical healthy grass, it will be green.
I am a "fan" of tentacle rape material – and although I do not produce such titles or write news articles in game magazines (although no such English publication exist) – I do consider myself knowledgeable. Of some relation: I also keep tabs on the eroge market and have a vested interest in it. I only state this, to point out that I'm not an insane random vandal. ^_-
The removal of the "citation needed" is not original research. Original research would be this poster, calculating a percentage of how much tentacle hentai is tentacle rape. What I am pointing out, is that the statement in question is: obvious to the topic when tentacle rape is seen with regularity, will not have a professional research citation from a credible institution (one could argue such a thing is beneath them), and is highly unnecessary. Please prove me otherwise. Nargrakhan 14:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Danknugets educates us all
Crust punk does not exist; the challendged Crust Punk genre was influenced by the subculture of Gutter Punk in NYC during the 80's. The anarchistic fashion sense may look crusty, but the transient lifestyle and general attitude of the scene made a distinct style of punk music, which I am afraid is not Crust Punk but should be called Gutter Punk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danknugets (talk • contribs) 00:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well
How do I revert the hist merge you performed here without doing a cut-and-paste? Please let me know the correct way to go about this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, through a hist split. However, if you look into the history of the two pages you'll see that one was in essence a fork of the other, intended as a new version; hence the histories of the pages do belong together, per GFDL compliance. >Radiant< 10:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All it needed was a link in the edit summary or the talk page that some material had been copied from the original article. It is particularly inappropriate to do the action done, as the original article is still in dispute and there is no consensus for a redirect, so the whole thing may need to be reversed at some point. Tyrenius 23:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Radiant, I know you might not respect my position, and perhaps you'll be offended by my criticism of your editorial decisions, but if enough editors agree the hist merge was inappropriate, will you help me revert it?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly the attempts by both of you to ignore the content discussion and instead misinformedly accuse people of misconduct are exceedingly unhelpful. >Radiant< 08:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anyone "ignoring" the content of the article; if you'd restore the article to its proper place, I'm sure everyone would continue the work of resolving the BLP and NOT concerns you have rightfully raised. A significant number of editors agree that the page move and hist merge doesn't naturally follow as a solution to these problems. Your relentless attempts to delete and merge the article and, most recently, the poorly advised redirect is as big a distraction from the content discussion as the "mudslinging" you complain about.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've entirely missed the point of what I just said. Also, you maybe sure that "everyone would continue the work of resolving this", but if you look into the actual history (as I've suggested a number of times already) you'd see that Certain People have been actively opposing and reverting the any suggested resolutions, for over a year now. >Radiant< 09:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. The article has been revised after previous discussion. That was the reason why more personal information was researched and included in the first place. No resolutions have gained any consensus during that time. It is good that more editors are now actively involved. If it is not helpful to accuse people of misconduct, then it would have been better if you had not posted to WP:AN/I#AFD_keep to do just that. Tyrenius 12:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you haven't really read my post on ANI. That would explain your response there, as well. >Radiant< 13:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which bit haven't I read exactly? Tyrenius 13:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, your attempts to ignore the content discussion and instead misinformedly accuse people of misconduct are exceedingly unhelpful. You need to calm down, and you need to start reading what people actually write, because you have persistently missed the point of nearly every conversation regarding this girl, including but not limited to the AFD, the talk page, and ANI. >Radiant< 13:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) That is your opinion and obviously you are certain that you are right, but there are other editors who do not agree with you. Tyrenius 13:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After you have checked out that article, consider this request: Fat Man, I have continued to edit Wikipedia under various pseudonyms, but its just not the same without my Solipsist3 name. I want it back. If I swear to edit Wikipedia for good and not evil, will you please lift the ban on my good old name? Solipsist4 05:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick, you know I don't have the power to lift bans, so it's silly to ask me. Furthermore, you haven't been banned, just blocked indefinitely. There's a difference. See WP:UNBLOCK if you want try to get the block reversed.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nudity v. Sexual pornography
You wrote: "plug your website somewhere else"
I respond: "It (domai.com) is not my website. I have no affiliation with it. Don't make rash assumptions." Theaveng 08:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I disagree with that. References require external links, and that's what I was doing - providing a reference - same thing I did for other articles like Blu-ray or HD-DVD. (Nevertheless I did delete the site, as a compromise between your edit and my edit.) Theaveng 08:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Happy birthday!
I see the fat man has finally come back. Please do not attempt to "out" me by publicizing my birthday. Continued harassment will result in your banning. Hard. Love, Mike R 01:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The cabal does not appreciate your meddling with My Dad. Mike R 01:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
I just want to drop a note about your conduct on the Anna Svidersky article. It stands above and beyond anyone else and I appreciate your sincere attempt for compromise. I just wish other editors were more open to editing and improving the article. The memorial aspect of the article is the most trouble and looking at the Talk page archive as well as the AfD discussion, it is clear that those are the items that catches the most editors eyes and cause them to have pause about the article. The article has a much better chance to survive future AfD and even prosper if the memorial details were trimmed. I came up with a rough draft of a "Non Memorial" version of the article that I know would address the majority of those concerns. I'm sure there is a middle crowd between this and the current article but it seems few want to find it. AgneCheese/Wine 03:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the encouraging words. I really think this can be a decent article and am a little confused where all the rancor and frustration is arising from.... on the other hand, I haven't been involved in the discussion as long as some of the other eidtors, so I can imagine the exhaustion the editors must be experiencing, butting heads over on the same topics for more than a year. I'll take a look at your non-memorial version and hopefully use it to help incoporate some encylopedic improvements into the article.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advanced layout help
{{helpme}}
I need some help positioning a picture correctly. I included a nice picture I took in an attempt to improve the Utah County article. I need it show up in the Geography section. However, due to a very long infobox, the picture is being pushed down into the Demographics section, where it does not belong. Ideally I'd like to right align that picture somewhere in that big white space to the right of the Adjacent Counties bulleted list. Can this be done?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe so - when you align an image to the right, it goes WAY to the right. If there's no room on the edge where you place the image, it gets stuck at the next available spot, as you've seen. I just tried repositioning it with a <span> tag, but all that did in the preview was make the image disappear entirely. However, if you align it left and place it at the beginning of the paragraph that starts "Utah Valley lies at the center of the county...", it doesn't appear to make any of the lines in the list break (on my screen, anyway, and it is slightly wider than most). I'll leave it to you to make the decision, though. Sorry I can't help more. Hersfold(t/a/c) 03:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are being helpful and constructive, but certain other people markedly are not. The sooner these people cease attacking others and blindly reverting, the sooner this issue can be resolved. >Radiant< 11:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Radiant, you have made many negative comments about editors, particularly Crum375 and myself, and are now accusing entirely new editors of WP:OWN because they disagree with you. You have "blindly" reverted - and deleted and redirected, actions reversed by multiple editors. Please have a look at your own behaviour. I seriously think your participation in this article has been very heavy-handed and disruptive. It would be much better if you restricted yourself to the talk page, and let other editors make the actual edits, following discussion. You take an extreme position on the whole article, namely wanting to delete it. The AfD and now the RfC plainly does not support your position. Tyrenius 11:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for proving my point so effectively. >Radiant< 12:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do what you accuse others of! Tyrenius 14:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tall men
Current status = crap caused it to populate the error category, which meant I had to go fix it :-) I'd like to tag more than a few articles with that status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of Wikipedia's "charms" is that it can be inconsistent. The RfDs conducted back in January concluded that this redirect should be deleted but that other, remarkably similar redirects would be kept. I can't pretend to explain why or how it happened but sometimes it just does.
Here's what I've found in my own research trying to answer your question:
Assburger Syndrome has only been deleted once (and never protected that I can tell). The deletion was a speedy citing case G10. Given the lengthy discussion at the related pages, you could certainly justify overturning that speedy on process grounds and forcing the issue to RfD.
Assburger syndrome was speedy-deleted. It was twice recreated and twice re-speedied with abbreviated RfD discussions. The second speedy-closure was contested at Deletion Review on 25 Jan 07 where the deletion was endorsed. Subsequent deletions were valid speedies under the recreated content criterion.
Assburger's syndrome was RfD'd on 23 Jan 07 and "kept". It was subsequently speedy-deleted as an implausible typo but procedurally restored because speedy-deletions are not allowed if there has been a prior XfD (with exceptions for the "recreated content" and "copyvio" criteria). This redirect was part of the most recent RfD which ended with a "no consensus" decision.
Other variants have been discussed in other RfDs - some kept, some deleted, some closed as "no consensus".
Given that there has been a full DRV discussion on the one without the apostraphe-s and in the lower case, I would not simply restore it. Doing so would rightly earn the page yet another a speedy-deletion as recreated content.
If you are that uncomfortable with the inconsistencies in the current results, you could make a formal proposal at Deletion Review in which you link all the prior discussions for as many of the related redirects as you can. Pose this issue not as advocating a particular position but as requesting a consistent decision. If you take that approach, be sure to send each of the participants in the prior debates a note so they can participate in the DRV discussion.
But even if you do all that, I'm not sure that it will be successful. A review of the prior discussions leads me to conclude that the community is not yet ready to reach consensus on this particular topic. It might be better to let it lie for a year or two. Rossami(talk) 20:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, overlooked that point. I believe it was protected because it was recreated even after a formal Deletion Review decision endorsed the deletion. But I unprotected that page and nothing in the log shows the re-application of protection. I'm not sure why or how it's still in protected status. You might have to ask a Developer to look into what's happening on this page. I'm confused. Rossami(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossami (talk • contribs) 04:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wilt's 100 points
No problem -- I didn't think our back-to-back reverts rose to the level of an "edit war". Just a difference of opinion, and the correct result was made (deletion of that particular sentence). My assertion would be that Hollinger's analysis (which I didn't read and only infer from your comment) is misleading in the sense that Bryant's missing six minutes did not occur at the end of the game, but instead occurred mostly in the first half in which he scored 26 points. So the amount one would extrapolate for six missing first half minutes would be less: it would tack on an additional eight points to 89. And anyhow, the characterization "threatened" does not deal with hypothetical extrapolations but instead deals with actual events . . . and 19 points difference is a big difference (I would agree, however, that Bryant "threatened" Chamberlain's record for points in a half with 55 vs 59). Incidentally, you may have been thinking of Bryant's 62 point game against the Mavericks in 2005 in which he really was benched the entire fourth quarter (playing 33 minutes total). Cheers! Myasuda 13:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adminship
Reviewing your contributions, I like what I see. Would you every want to run for admin? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 18:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think there are far worthier candidates than yours truly. But hypothetically, if someone gave me the mop, I'd try more often than not to not make a mockery of the position. Please don't go nominating me or anything silly like that.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a shame. Tyrenius 00:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment - which compensates for some of the brickbats! My impression of you in our occasional crossings is of a steady pair of hands with good judgement and knowledge of policy, so that's an excellent starting point. I recall I even lobbed over a barnstar, which I don't do without good cause. I'd have to look further before a full endorsement, but please let me know when the time is right. Waiting till 5000 edits again shows maturity, if I may say so. And I'm pleased to let you know I am in agreement with Radiant! now on Wikipedia talk:User page... Tyrenius 02:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, you are not an admin?!? I would have never guess that. I respect your decision but do consider running at some point. I normally don't hang around RfAs but will keep an eye out for yours. You are certainly an asset to the project. AgneCheese/Wine 08:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were one already too. LOL. Even of you do smell. :p - JeenyTalk 09:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism reverts
Thanks for the reverts. Amazing what goes on while you're asleep! Freshacconci 10:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of discussion on Sarah Silverman (Talk)
Hi, the edits you made to that talk page were correct, although I didn't want my name to be associated with other users who use Wikipedia like a forum, so I thought I should let u know that the discussion did actually start regarding wether a "controversy" section should be removed from the article, then some other idiots came along and started talking about liberalism n what not, so just so u know, I wasn't one of the ones chatting about Sarah, only the article Ryan4314 18:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did delete[12] a section involving message board-style chit-chat, but your comments were not among those I deleted. However, I moved[13] a section containing some of your comments because the latest talk should go on the bottom of a page, not the top. This had nothing to do with with the substance of your comments, only the placement.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An Award for You
Chaw o' Tobacca
To The Fat Man Who Never Came Back: For all your hard, decent and often unacknowledged work on this here Wikipedia, I present to you this chaw for your enjoyment. Sincerely, Mike R 17:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm excited about my pornography photo for the template. I'll post it to the page momentarily.. --David Shankbone 00:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SkinnyBitch cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SkinnyBitch cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Well, Mr. Bot, I attempted to add a fair use rationale, but I'm not sure if it's good enough. If there are any further problems, I'm sure you'll inform me. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surprising comment on Tony's page
Well, I was a bit surprised, at least. You said deleting talkpage discussions is all right as long as you don't insult people. But the reason I linked to Tony's deletion on Phil Sandifer's page was so people would see the very insulting edit summary he used for it. Perhaps you didn't notice it, though. Regards, Bishonen | talk 11:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Bishonen. I'm very familiar with Tony's sometimes confrontational style and his unfortunate tendency toward self-righteousness. I still like him as an editor and don't think it was wrong of him to try to end a discussion that was going nowhere. Of course I wish he would be a tad nicer and less obnoxious in his edit summaries... but I don't think people are going to improve his disposition and get him to stop scolding people and calling people names by scolding him and calling him names.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 11:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Wikiquette Alerts page
Hi there. I saw your recent comments (both in edit summary on the WQA page, and in Tony Sidaway's talk page before he removed them) regarding Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, in which you stated that you believe the page is pointless and you will be nominating it for deletion. While you are certainly welcome to pursue an AfD for this page, I'd like to ask why you feel this way.
In my opinion, WQA has been quite helpful in resolving a number of interpersonal conflicts through informal mediation. I realize that there's already another portion of WP:DR for informal mediation, as well as formal, but WQA is about as informal as it gets, short of just having a conversation in an article or user talk page. I've personally helped over a dozen people through this page, and have received help from several people myself, and it has helped to make many people aware of Wikipedia's civility policies when they otherwise might not have found them. To lose this page would be a big disservice to the community, methinks.
Just wanted to express my opinion and solicit yours. Thanks for listening. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was a just a regurgitation of the disastrous WP:PAIN. But if you say it's done a lot of good, I will take a closer look and sleep on it before starting an MfD.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:PAIN was originally started for a similar cause, but its purpose was too poorly stated to be useful, and it ended up just turning into a "bitching session board". WQA is starting to turn into that too, I agree, but we're actively discussing ways to keep it on-topic. This is why I've been lately telling people that we can't and won't try to resolve content disputes there - we're just there to help on civility issues. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No good can come of this. Yes, it pains me when he heaps abuse upon his wiki-colleagues, but you have to learn to take that stuff with a grain of salt and love him for his good qualities.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing excuses his behaviour - if it pains you then you should help the people who are attempting to remedy the situation. ViridaeTalk 02:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who's excusing anything? I simply prefer to not make the problem worse. You are distracting Tony from important tasks.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly did not, but if it was a joke, then I am in error here. Regards, Mercury 04:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Errr
Do you honestly think this is likely to help? Friday(talk) 03:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just becoming a little depressed by the whole proceedings, so I thought I would pepper them with a few choice Tony-isms.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll secretly admit I giggled, but I could imagine it pissing people off, too. Oh well, it's been reverted. Friday(talk) 04:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the MFD. The talk page that you recreated has been tagged for speedy. O2 (息 • 吹) 00:57, 10 October 2007 (GMT)
Ah, I see. I missed that one (though I participated in the 1st MfD). That's what I get for taking wikibreaks from time to time. I'll try to be on here nonstop henceforth.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you like my user page, by the way? I think it could have gone all the way.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
Minor Barnstar
The Minor Barnstar
So many of your efforts might seem minor, but they are major. Things like looking for better photos, list clean-ups, etc. are important to the functionality and quality of our project. Thank you. Thank you. David Shankbone 01:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David, you're a really good interviewer! Almost Howard Stern-like, and I mean that as a compliment. Can I read any more of your work somewhere?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man. I have my interviews here: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:David_Shankbone/Interviews. Unfortunately, my most MAJOR interviews (Augusten Burroughs, Gay Talese, Sam Brownback, Nadine Strossen, Peter Gilmore, et. al.) haven't been transcribed yet. I have five interviews waiting to be transcribed, and five major interviews coming at the end of this week. --David Shankbone 01:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lidia Bastianich
Thanks for understanding. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a personal interest in keeping the woman's Croat origin a secret? --24.56.137.185 (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but perhaps Lidia herself does (or at the very least prefers to think of herself as Italian). Check out WP:BLP.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair Use
I don't mind that, as long as it's explained and not just done as an act of patent revenge for nothing in particular. Whilst I am still perhaps naive and WP:AGF, I am not into retaliation for its own sake, particularly when it seems to be driven by paranoia. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 03:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay to complain about another user's actions, but you should avoid ascribing motives to them. It's not helpful, for example, to speculate as to whether mental illness/meanness motivate another user's edits.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to try and take a break at least until I get my next prognosis. After that I will at least have some idea of whether it's worth carrying on here. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 16:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Pwn
Well...Looks like that didn't take long.
I am a little disappointed that I didn't even get to !vote in the discussion.
Anyway, thanks for taking care of that. --Onorem-"pwn"-Dil 11:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support for that short-lived project. I wish to be acquainted with you so that I may have support in my future endeavors on the internets. --Chinese3126 23:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paranoia
Giano has long been known for his paranoia and tendency to insert inflammatory broad brush attacks into discussions. This is (barely) tolerated because he is otherwise a reasonable editor. It is better to remove his comments where they are not appropriate than to indulge him in any way. In any case, please don't do anything that might encourage him to make further inappropriate comments either in Wikipedia-space or on user talk pages such as my own. --Tony Sidaway 16:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poor Tony - he has never quite got over not being an admin and his fall from grace. One does try to ignore him but sometimes one has to be firm with him for his own good. Giano 17:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great edit tonight. Just wanted to say thanks. Rray 03:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. Deleting things is a fun and fast-growing hobby suitable for the entire family.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE:godspeed you! black emperor
Hi, I was also looking for some nice GYBE! pictures for the spanish article and I found those pictures in Flickr with full copyright, and asked the author to release the images. Luckily for us, the author loved the idea. Among the other CC-BY-SA pics of post-rock ensembles that I've uploaded in Commons there's Explosions in The Sky, Explosions In The Sky, A Silver Mt. Zion and A Silver Mt. Zion. I hope one day I have the chance to take this kinda pictures myself... but I think it's quite difficult that one of this bands came to Argentina. In the future, if you found more free licensed images of post-rock bands, please let me know in my english discussion or my spanish discussion. Meanwhile, if I found any other pic, I'll sure let you know. Cheers, Kved 01:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, that one is pretty good!. I'm going to use it! Buenos Aires is great, by the way--one of my favorite places to visit (but last time I was there, I accidentally got fat from all the great food....). Maybe I'll see some music when I travel there next year.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW... today I've got for you one nice Mogwai picture, and other three Sigur Rós pics here, here, and here. Hope you like it. Greetings from the far south of the world. Kved 02:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Silverman
What on earth does she have to do with LBTG "studies?" I would like to revert this edit[14], but perhaps you'd care to explain yourself first. Is it because she does a lot of gay jokes; what comedian doesn't make fun of gay people? Or is it because your original research tells you gay people like her? Barbara Streisand and Liza Minelli aren't part of the project (but Judy Garland is!).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, TFMWNCB. First, Silverman's in Category:LGBT rights activists. Second, (the reason she's in that cat) the article states she won't get married until same-sex couples are able to. That's also properly sourced. Thanks for writing - and I'll check out Babs and Liza and see if they should be included :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks for responding. I had scanned the article for any reference to gayness or gaiety, but I missed that one. Still, the reference is fleeting, and I find the association a rather weird stretch. But I'll leave it alone, with the hopes of remaining on the velvet mafia's good side (I can't believe someone wrote an article about the "gay mafia." I love this website!).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, mate. Thanks for letting me know. Smilesfozwood 19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I do wonder whether we should reconsider merging the articles though. I opposed it then, but the "Allahu Akbar" meme is still apparently live. Having one article for both would prevent readers from erroneously assuming that we just omitted the controversy without comment. Cool HandLuke 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone once proposed merging Trolley Square shooting into Sulejman Talović, which I opposed[15]. But upon careful consideration, I would fully support the vice versa. After all, Talović is only known for one thing, so it make sense to redirect his article to the main Trolley Square shooting page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about the tagging and thanks for the swift correction. The referenced articles are now present and all is right with the world. - Dravecky 21:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goldeneye thing
Whilst blocks are not preventative, the user had received final warnings and he was pushing his luck. I have blocked him for 24 hours and the page is salted. We will see if he tries to recreate it after his block expires. Woodym555 13:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks! I thought the admin adage was that blocks are preventative, not punitive, but perhaps I have things mixed up.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm :~, yes, got my words mixed up there didn't I, blocks are not punitive, they are preventative. Whoops. Woodym555 17:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, although i am sure you are aware, Wikipedia:Blocking policy is the link. It is one of those instances where you are thinking about thing, whilst attempting to write down a different comment, and getting everything mixed up in the process. I left a note on your talk page because you were asking for a block based on foresight into what you thought he might do. The salting would have stopped him from recreating that page. I blocked him because he had recently recreated the article twice after being given a block warning. It would have been wrong to block him simply on the premise that he might recreate it under a slightly different spelling. As i said earlier, we will see what happens when the block expires, it was only a short block and hopefully they will have seen the error of their ways. Woodym555 17:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "abuse" you on your talk-page.
You might stick to the rules.
Don't start insulting with for example "clown" and then come back whining. OK?
As you might recognized, you wrote on the talk-page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:212.23.126.9&redirect=no) of my current IP-address. Where else should I write a message to you then?
You really should read the rules. Actually I wanted to add more information to the image or remove it myself it it wouldn'T work out.
How should I "help" you, as you ask, if you simply don't stick to the things that are in bold written and bordered red (or black) at the picture page???
I added to the article out of interest. I very rarely spend time editing on wikipedia. Very rarely. How much more time should I spend for this image, or 'helping you', if you don't even want to read the rules??
Indeed! I was right with assuming you will need the sunday to read the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.126.9 (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't realize it was you who uploaded the picture. Sorry for calling you a "clown"--I should have assumed the uploader meant well, despite the crucial pieces of information you/she/he left out. If you really didn't mean what you wrote to me as an insult, I'll take you at your word. My only goal with the Josie Maran article is to see a stable, high quality image that's not going to get deleted. Trust me, the image you keep restoring is going to be zapped very shortly. I'm not going to continue to edit war with you, but wouldn't it be nice if we could find a free image, so we wouldn't have to bicker about fair use guidelines?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What ever. Just mind your words before you use them. (While you have posted your answer I had written some more:
>> "Another tip for you:" You might consider why you need an extra "insult"-page! - Nobody should think I insulted you: everyone could read the history, but practically noone would, I know.
But the reason you put my first message on an insult page is, as said, that you maybe have a problem into insight of your own faulty actions: So you just remove some things, but the other parts without any connection to previous content or chatting you put on the insult page to ridicule people.
Not very clever!) <<
Feel free to delete my messages here, they were only thought for as messages, not for written and saved for years.
In fact, the original issue is solved anyway in at least 24 hours.
bye bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.126.9 (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain the insults page for my private amusement, as a remembrance of the scintillating discourse that graced these pages in the recent and distant past. I'm sorry you don't share the amusement. Perhaps you should nominate the page for deletion, if you disagree with its premise. I have never claimed to be clever and have acknowledged many, many times that my wikijokes are not particularly funny. Now, go about your day and please stop uploading problematic pictures. -The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But...
Did you find my little "humorous example" (not joke) on the Just Kidding page funny? I also please look at the reason I blanked the pages, I clicked on "Random article" and it took me to some short page and it shouldn't link me to there. Also change your username because it is too long.
--Gutzky 21:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Name
Ah, no worries; I sometimes get that particular variation IRL as well. (It's still better than "Carol", of course!) Kirill 01:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: Original research and reliable sources
Hello. You recently contributed to a discussion about original research and sourcing at the List of musical works in unusual time signatures. I am requesting comments from the wider community in hopes of settling a dispute there. Please visit this section of the talk page if you wish to further contribute to the discussion. Thank you. Nick Graves 02:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fat Man. Thanks for posting at the RSN, and for your response to my RfC. I made a couple of points about Pandora that I think help demonstrate its reliability. Please take a look at those and the article I cited. Thank you. Nick Graves 03:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you are aware of this, but that page is about to be deleted completely. Mainly because of confusion over the name. So, if you want it kept, suggest that you participate in the discussion. Sad really, that something so valuable on Wikipedia is about to get deleted, all because people on MFD want it so. Senseless. Another nail in the Wikipedia coffin. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ta bu shi da yu, I think you've already made a fool of yourself with that ridiculous and utterly unjustified speedy close[16]. I like the article just as much as you do, but the reason they're deleting it is not because of the name, but because of its content! Wikipedia:Facebook is an accurate, concise and light-hearted descriptor. I hate the drab, artless "Images of Wikipedians". Discuss the change before performing controversial moves. It's in the rules. What on earth has gotten into you? Also, stop canvassing. You're setting a bad example as an admin.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are pretty much sabotaging the page by naming it as "facebook". How on earth did you come to the conclusion that it is even a controversial move? The only person to get upset is you, and you're only upset because there wasn't a WP:RM. WP:POINT, right there. Then you have the nerve to insult Ta bu shi da yu with baseless canvassing accusations? -- Ned Scott 04:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you edit warring with me, Ned Scott? Ta bu shi da yu is acting like a bozo, plain and simple. This at least, is not, controversial. He's gone bonkers, and he needs to to take a break. In general, I've always thought you had a lot of sense, and I sympathize with you and TBSDY for wanting to preserve an article that adds a lot of color and fun to the project. But this ain't the way to do it. Play by the rules, that's all I'm saying. And I'm hardly the only one who see's Ta bu's behavior as canvassing, so keep your rebukes for those who deserve them. He seemed to be going through the entire (pardon me) wikipidia directory and got blocked when he got to the C's. Shame on him!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"He's gone bonkers, and he needs to to take a break." - not that your moves were entirely sane either. Violating the rules in spirit but not the letter is also bad for your soul. AwyongJeffreyMordecaiSalleh 08:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy's spirit did I violate? Let me know which of my edits appear less than sane; I'll happily admit when I'm wrong. In this case, I think the original move to Images of Wikipedians was performed entirely without discussion, as one of several desperate measures TBSDY employed to keep a page he likes from being deleted. I think his canvassing worked, I think the debate is going to be closed with ho consensus. This is great for the page (I like that page too!), but I believe it sets a bad precedent for acceptable behavior by admins. Anyway, I resolved to stop moving the page without getting more opinions on the matter (independent of your having applied move protection, whether you believe me or not). Edit wars make me unhappy.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(←) "Which policy's spirit did I violate?" Don't admonish others for having done unrequested moves when you revert them in a equally unrequested manner. AwyongJeffreyMordecaiSalleh 09:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break. I was just reverting it back to the familiar title that's been there for years, because I thought the original move was inappropriate. Reverting an inappropriate edit isn't by definition an equally inappropriate edit. If I had changed to something else entirely, you might have a point.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya. I've declined speedy of the above. The guidelines at WP:CSD are clear cut on this - suspected hoaxes are not eligible for speedy and must be subject to wider review. I'd recommend taking it to WP:AFD to get shot of it! Pedro : Chat 11:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've proded it. I've reverted the damage to the template. The rules are clear cut IMHO, but if you take it to WP:AFD you might well find another admin who will be bold and ignore this rule. Pedro : Chat 11:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it in edit view for some...light humor. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 14:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this! If there are but a few who find my ridiculousness amusing, it brightens my day.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy request
I see that the Molly Stevens article was deleted[17] as non-notable in January of 2006 and again two months later; if the deleted article was about the cooking author/teacher, could you userfy the page so I can work on it? She's definitely notable. If, on the other hand, the article was about, er, the "14 year old upcoming supermodel hottie," please don't bother. Thanks, --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya! Both deleted versions were about the 14 year old middle schooler, sorry. Writing a Molly Stevens article about someone notable would be great! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well
Never fear, I'll soon have given it up. Hope you feel great, putting that last edit on my talk page. I'll bet it made you feel like a tremendously wonderful editor, kicking an editor when they are down. Does it make you feel like a big man?
So much for the "Barnstar of good humour", Mr Chuckles you. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sarcasm. This[18] is what actually makes me feel like a big man, as it were. And you're hardly "down." By your own admission, your life personal and family life is going splendidly; it's just that wiki stuff that appears to be upsetting you. I think you should spend some time with the fam and focus on what makes you happy, then return to editing, once you feel restored and are prepared to stop behaving so erratically. You can even get one of those new accounts where they grant you admin privileges without having to re-apply through the ghastly RfA process.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case you hadn't noticed, there are a few things about this project that were always important.
Don't troll others, and don't be nasty to them. If your humour was designed to hurt another, don't do it. The humour on Wikipedia is meant to be gentle, not harsh. Hard humour designed to bring down another is not conducive to editing on this project, nor collaboration. There is enough conflict without someone's lack of regard for another to cause more hurt and pain.
I am perfectly able to keep my real life separate from the editing I do on this project. Like I said, things in my normal life are great, except for a bit of sickness I've had for a few days. Yeah, it's a bit stressful, but that's what happens when your wife is pregnant and money is tight with a new-born on the way. However, this doesn't mean that I'm not extremely sad that this project has turned into a horrible blame-fest, with no way of people to make mistakes, or to speak their mind, or to leave without someone leaving a nasty comment on their user talk page. I've been on this project for almost 5 years, and you are one of the very few that I've seen who left a "don't let the door hit you on the arse" style comment. Mostly when someone leaves from disappointment, other editors refrain from commenting, or at the very least note what they didn't like in a very short comment (as in "I didn't agree with that you did such-and-such") and don't make a personal comment designed to be hurtful.
I have no intention of returning to editing. Like I said, I scrambled my account. I'm only coming back to respond to comments like the ones you left me. I certainly didn't expect for people to be horrible to me on my talk page, or to accuse me of having a sock-puppet when I log in and edit anonymously (?!?).
I have contributed quite a bit to this project (for instance, I spent two years writing the USA PATRIOT Act article), and have tried to make sure that I never misused admin tools. I think that is why long-time, valuable contributors aren't particularly happy I'm leaving. I feel sorry for those in the trenches. Unfortunately, many feel the way I do and are deeply saddened that the old spirit of forgiveness, Wikilove and community is being eroded by those who only want to do meta-editing, vandal hunting and casting judgement on others. There is certainly more of that now on Wikipedia than there is of actual quality editing of Wikipedia articles. It also means a lot less recognition for those who do the bulk of the work in getting topics and articles up to speed in terms of quality. I definitely encourage any editor to remember the core goal of Wikipedia, which is to contribute the sum total of all knowledge. I do know that writing nasty comments on talk pages doesn't help that at all, all it does is make more good contributors leave. It does allow more people in who only want to be involved in making decisions for the project but who don't really care about editing articles.
So before you decide to post a "witty" comment on someone else's talk page, think about whether it's there to judge them and bring them down, or whether you really want them to stay and produce good contributions for Wikipedia. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I really, really hurt your feelings; sorry for that. Perhaps I overreacted to the distasteful way you've behaved over the past few days; I really expect long-time editors and admins to be exemplars, but when they fuck up, that's no excuse for me to be mean. I wasn't saying anything close to "don't let the door hit you on the way out," nor did I ever suggest that my comment was particularly witty. I was merely alerting others who were mourning your departure that you never actually left; however, when I re-read my comment it sounded awfully mean-spirited, which is one of several reasons I deleted it (only for you to restore it). Yes, I'm unfamiliar with the scale and quality of your magisterial contributions--and I never claimed to be your equal in experience or utility to the project--but you're none too familiar with my behavior as an editor, either. I do have a good idea what Wikipedia's all about and don't need to be lectured via enumerated do's and dont's by someone I don't really look up to or care to emulate. Nobody's perfect, and we've both had our ill-advised moments; my humor can be inappropriate or dark, but if you really look at my interactions with other editors, you'll find that I get along great with a wide assortment of people; I'm sweet, patient and helpful more often than not. I meant it when I said not to let let one online jerk-off effect your mood. It's not worth it. If you truly see me as nothing but a troll, you should really stop feeding me. Please go in peace.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I've often written comments on people's pages that I regret later. It takes a big man (really, no pun intended here!) to say what you just said, and I appreciate it. The more Wikilove, the better. I didn't really see you as a troll, but your comment did upset me. But... the comment above does make things right. I very much appreciate you saying it, and no more hard feelings on my end anymore. I hope that any bad feelings that I've caused could be forgiven on your end also. It's been a tough WikiWeek for me.
It is tough for me to leave. I have done a lot of stuff on this project... I guess I only said this because I was justifying my existence here to you and I wanted you to know how very much I regret the way things have turned out. It's an awfully hard thing to do to leave Wikipedia, I tried it once, left for 6 months and came back again. This time it's not really viable to do so, things have changed a lot from the first time. That's why this time I have scrambled my account so I can't get back in. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm speechless. That took some serious craftsmanship; what a pity the result was so crude. As for your second question, I love CSCWEM as an admin and vandal fighter, but the Simpsons reference doesn't do it for me; usernames on my list tend toward more original creations.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. No wonder it isn't listed there. Anyway, there should be some other short funny user names as well. Is this considered funny to you? -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 12:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Jeremy (name)
Sorry, I misread the tag. Thought you needed the space to move the article. I believe history merge is used to correct a cut and paste move, which was not the case. My apologies, PeaceNT (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was a cut-and-paste move. I cut and pasted it myself. Would you mind having another look, or referring me to an admin experienced in fixing such matters?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that it wasn't a move, since both pages still exist on their own, not one redirecting to the other. Will see what can be done about the overlapping history of these two pages. Best regards, PeaceNT 05:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dang! That's one of the more complicated history merges I've done. It's been fixed, I suppose. Anyway, just give me a shout if I messed something up, which I hope not. :) Take care, PeaceNT 06:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you! Unfortunately, on the Jeremy (name) talk page, two other admins have advised me that a history merge would not be a good idea... but I suppose it's too late now. Perhaps I shouldn't have opened my mouth; I seem to have created an even more confusing situation, but I appreciate your attention to my request. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Love the Q&A page
I came across your user name on the ANI page and was intrigued enough to visit your user page. In reading it, I clicked the link to the Q&A. Funny, engaging stuff. And informative. (I missed the Wiki scandal of Essjay. Whoa.)
And I love the portrait. I know this isn't the Q&A page, but I note that you're wearing only black and white. Do you ever accessorize with color? Something shockingly extravagant, like fuschia or electric green? I don't know if TFMWNCB has a nickname, but I'd like to suggest one that I gave my corpulant tuxedo pussycat (now deceased, so it would be appropriate to pass it on, as she has passed on): Orca Porka. I think she hated it. She would sniff disdainfully and ignore me when I used it. I thought it accurately descriptive and somewhat lighthearted. Perhaps you are of the same opinion and would like to adopt the moniker. Feel free.
With all due respect, while I'm sure it served you well in the past, but your look is terribly dated. But with a new name and some hot in your drag, maybe a little bling, you'd be truly phat, Fatman. Think on it. Hey, maybe that could be your new nickname: The Phatman Who Never Came Back. Yeah. Like dat. ;) deeceevoice (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deeceevoice, I have heard so much about you and welcome you to my talk page. I dare say the problem with (bracing myself, Imus style) you people is that you only see things in terms of black and white. If I could afford to buy you a new monitor, you would clearly see that my robes are not tuxedo black but rather a dense and voluptuous shade of chocolaty mahogany. Brown is beautiful too, after all. I will take your offer to brighten my wardrobe under advisement, though I suspect such flamboyant hues as fuschia rarely found their way onto the palette of my esteemed portraitist. But I flunked art history, so I could be wrong about that. Perhaps I should just get a mumu.
I'm sorry to hear about your kitty, and I like her nickname. Thank goodness that my own cat, Monstrance, is currently slightly paunchy at best because I monitor her food intake with a rigor I have declined to exercise upon myself.
I've never been called "phat" before and, though I loathe my unfashionable nature, feel I am currently ill-suited for the term. Would you object if I got one of those grills that I saw on once on MTV2? Then I might be able to make the jump from fatness into phatness. But for now, I continue to stand with Fat Joe, Fat Albert, and the Fat Boys, which is good enough company for me. Happy editing, --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMG! Grill work? Aw, hay-o to duh naw! lol (The problem with you people is you think one-dimensional, cartoonish gangsta MTV images.)deeceevoice (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apology required
I have never read such insulting drivel before. I think you should appolagise [19]. Giano (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, Giano. Drivel is my specialty, but my rant was a general one (an impersonal vs. personal attack), and I wasn't really thinking of you. I will, however, happily apologize to the general class of enraged bullies that linger about this site later, after I'm through with the laundry. But first I have to finish replying to deeceevoice; I'm several days behind on my talk page drivel.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not to worry, Durova has learnt nothing [20] about people's feelings and their attitudes to insults of the most vile kind. Nothing changes does it. Giano (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
For kind words. Cheers, DurovaCharge! 21:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get lost
This edit was totally inappopriate. You told me "If you truly see me as nothing but a troll, you should really stop feeding me. Please go in peace." So I left you in peace, with a final message that reflected that. Then you edit my user page. So... get lost, troll. - 220.237.19.227 (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who you are, but I think you have the chronology mixed up. This edit was left on the 15th of November. I made amends with TBSDY 3 days later [21] and apologized for being unkind. That's when I told him to go in peace, not before. Stop stirring up trouble. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Hello Fat Man. Thanks for the quick response to RS1900's harassment on my talk page. Was he on your watchlist, or something? Were you the one who notified the "authorities" on my behalf when you saw the message? One admin blocked RS1900, and someone else categorized him as a sock of Devraj5000 soon after (I had filed a sock case earlier, but it had been closed due to lack of sufficient evidence). I'm just curious as to how the whole process worked, and pleased to know that people are watching for such misbehavior and responding quickly to it. Again, thanks. Nick Graves (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Nick. I have your talk page on my watchlist, because we have conversed in the past. I noticed that someone had left you a laughable yet reprehensible post threatening you with real-life harm; all I did was report it[22] to the Admin noticeboard and suggest a block was in order. 2 admins saw my post, quickly blocked the harraser and deleted the offending edits from general view. There was nothing to it, and I'm glad I could help. Also, the one who claimed you stalker is a sockpuppet is User:Hemlock_Martinis. You might want to leave a note or email him for more info. cheers, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Q&A
Hello, TFMWNCB! You have some un-answered questions on your "Q&A" page. Thanks! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even unpopular people fall behind on their fan mail, from time to time (It's 11:19 here, and I still have to do the dishes!). But this weekend, the I will spew drivel and doggerel upon my subpages like no one's business, I promise.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Lolcatese
Well I think it should say "but they deleted it" (feel free to mangle spelling into lolcat-eze). The current text makes it seem like kitty requested a CSD G7.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I happy to see you have joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy. The name articles still need a lot of work to make them consistent and informative. Any help you can give would be very much appreciated. Remember 21:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Your kind words will be remembered when I take my throne on ArbCom mountain. --EndlessDan 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indenting ArbCom votes
On Giano's ArbCom vote page, you asked what ST47 was doing indenting some votes.[23] To quote Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote: "In order to vote, you must have an account registered with at least 150 mainspace edits before the start of the nomination process November 1, 2007." The users he tagged do not meet the requirement for participation, which is why their votes were taken out of the count. As ST47's edit was in keeping with the election's rules, I have reverted your edit.[24] No harm, no foul.
I can understand being confused by something that you're unfamiliar with, but the better action is to ask the editor directly, rather than reverting the edit. EVula// talk // ☯ // 01:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely right--at first glance 3 of the 4 users looked legit--but they fell just short of the threshold; someone's watching those votes very carefully. I'll apologize to ST47.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had to do some number crunching to verify that, yes, they didn't actually have the required number of edits. I certainly don't blame you for your reaction. :) EVula// talk // ☯ // 01:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
w00t
Thanks for teh comment about my usernamez0r I Has A Username (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
I give you some run here. Mike R (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fat chance, though I appreciate the gesture! I think the article was only 200 words or so--barely more than a stub. DYK guidlines require that the article be at least 1500 words. I'd love to expand the article, but there's not a whole lot to be said about Amulek beyond what I wrote. It would be amusing to see him on the main page, though.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I haven't been keeping close enough tabs on DYK. I don't think the 1500 word rule was in place three years ago when my last DYK, Ray Jay Johnson, was up. I'm sure there's more that could be said about Ammy. Maybe I'll give expansion a go. P.S. Do you remember Zeezrom as looking like Wallace Shawn? I do. Mike R (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I was just thinking about Wallace Shawn yesterday: "And when I was ten years old, I was rich, I was an aristocrat. Riding around in taxis, surrounded by comfort, and all I thought about was art and music. Now, I'm 36, and all I think about is money." Zeezrom was definitely portrayed as bald, but I picture him as sort of a strapping, imposing fellow. More John Malkovich than Wally.
As far as expanding the article, you might want to mention that a line from Amulek's Zoramite sermon "I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end" sermon is oft-quoted by Mormon educators. I'm sure you could source that.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, have you seen my contributions? I think you might be mistaking me for someone else.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Nice!
I really, really like the way you handle trolls.
The Barnstar of Good Humour
For maintaining calm in the face of hostile fire, you are hereby awarded the Barnstar of Good Humour. Keep cracking us up; you're doing a great job. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 04:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...uhh, by the way, is your user name related to this? I'm just asking. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 04:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, A. Exeunt. I'm sure I'm an absolute delight. However, I must caution you that while many of us are mindful of the 3RR, there is a lesser known but equally important policy known as the 3BS rule. It stipulates that no user may award another user more than 3 consecutive barnstars; cases where you award an editor the same type of barnstar 3 consecutive times are particularly frowned upon. You are very nearly in breach of this policy. Watch yourself, or I'll file a report on the soon-to-be-created WP:AN/3BS board.
Rest assured, my good man, that I shall refrain from giving you barnstars in excess. Keep up the jolly work! -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 08:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the definition is "stools composed of prenatally ingested material" rather than "baby's first poopie", and hopefully I clarified the article sufficiently. Happy 2008! Kelvinc (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't understand
I am only very peripherally involved in the current arbitration. However, SandyGeorgia saved my sanity when she left a post on my talk page to check a message to me on hers. [25] Before that, I was very confused as Admins seemed to be treating Zereaph's behavior as normal or even deserving of sympathy and remarking that my behavior was just as bad as hers. This complaint of Zereaph's on AN/I was shelved as trivial with no investigation by User:FayssalF who is now on ArbCom and who took the trouble to make a disparaging remark about me there in the complaint:[26]
Sandy took the trouble to bring the callousness of that comment to User:FayssalF's attention. And because of her, he did apologize to me.
In the face of my one effective complaint [27] she was blocked. I do not understand the thinking of the unblocking admin as Zereaph was clearly unrepentant and it would not take much investigation to see that.
Sandy was extremely kind to take the time and leave me that message. She also took the trouble to look up my edit history (which virtually nobody bothers to do) to qualify her answer to me. And she stood up for me to User:FayssalF. I too am aware of her extremely busy day and her quite and helpful responses as I follow FAC. She has been the only responsive and helpful Admin I have ever encountered. I find it hard to understand how this Arbitration could be happening with an editor as well respected and helpful as is Sandy. Sincerely, Mattisse 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your story is not unique or surprising; Sandy's helped a lot of people, myself included. BTW, she is not an admin :).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She did tell me she was not an admin. I forget because no admin has ever been very helpful and Sandy always is. Mattisse 22:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no karaoke stars for my userbox. I've changed it back to David, as I feel it most represents my particular kind of personal beauty. Mike R (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just be thankful I'm not in a more mischievous mood, or I'd vandalize your user box with the likeness of some other notable figure named David (but I won't say who). That's all I have to say on this matter.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hmmmmm.... you speak in riddles, my friend. "CN," I have deduced, must stand for WP:CN, a link to a defunct board I deleted from your talk page. "Ta," however, confounds me a little.... curse you kids and your newfangled abbreviated cyber-jargon.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel un-cosmopolitan for not knowing that. If I ever realise my dream of running off with some English chick bird, I guess we'll have to speak the international language of Love, because we sure as hell won't be able to understand one another.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ta ta for now (a different usage of the word, meaning goodbye but in a casual way). Tyrenius (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In July to September 2006, I had a house full of adolescents for a few months. Some or all of them used my computer (I was not there part of the time due to family emergency) and created identities called sock puppets. I was blamed for that and blocked for some days as a punishment.
Since that period the accusation that I regularly use sock puppets has been thrown up, even though that was a singular episode. Even Z brought it up on an AN/I complaint against me recently.[30]
Even by User:FayssalF (who I had never even heard of before) made disparaging remarks about me because of this.
Because people like Z bring up the charge just to discredit me, it is the "Scarlet Letter" that Salix alba was referring to that cause my complaints to be automatically dismissed and I can never get help from Admin. (See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Salix alba, User:Salix alba addresses this continuing accusations of me as a "scarlet letter" under his answers to questions 3.A. He also put together Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse to try to clear my name. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood
the sock puppet ring that had harassed me for over six months was caught by a recused arbitrator. However, because of people like Z continuing to bring up the original incident (which the sock puppet ring brought up hundreds of times against me for six months) I can never get help from Admin and am alway discredited and ridiculed, or treated unfairly.
When SG first interacted with me she asked me strictly about the sock puppet accusations. I have been ridiculed for the "grannie defense" but SG is the only person who said she understood how that could have happened. Besides Salix alba (and many other editors who left Wikipedia due to the outfall of the Starwood Arbitration) SG has been the only person who has not dismissed me and automatically assumed I have sock puppets (due to the allegations Z so effectively used the in the AN/I link above). See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2 as an example.
It is very painful to see SG have to go through this Arbitration. Much the same is happening to her. Allegations, charges, innuendos from the past are being used against her currently. I guess this is the way Wikipedia works.
Sincerely, Mattisse 15:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're sharing these accounts with me, but I am saddened to hear about the difficulties you faced last year. You and I have had very different experiences on Wikipedia, but I think we share a mutual dismay at what SG (someone we both look up to) is being put through. I know the ArbCom case is necessarily dredging up a great deal of bitter memories involving a number of editors; for this reason, I hope to see the Committee put matters to rest swiftly and fairly. I wish you a more pleasant editing experience this year. (BTW, I've never heard the term "Grannie defense" before; I'll have to remember that one, as I'm always curious to learn the latest wiki-terms of derision). --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: wikilolcats
Hi Gurchso. Is there a quick way I can browse through all the wikilolcats you've uploaded (I know of 2, but I was curious if there are more)?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What happened after 3 hours? Can you make a lolcat requesting rollback? Maybe like a picture of a cat rolling on its back..... --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, rollback is of no use to me unless I integrate it into my RC patrolling software, which would take several hours, and I do not have much time. It is only worth doing if I know for sure the feature is not going to be removed again, which is not clear at the moment – Gurch 06:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I love it! Seems as if everyone else likes it too; thanks for putting that picture together. I did some RC patrolling for the first time in a long time, and I find the tool useful. I actually enjoy writing edit summaries, but if the summary would have been "rv v" or "rv juvenile stupidity" I suppose rollback is more efficient. Sorry about opening a RFCU on Gurchzilla. No one here[31][32][33][34] gets my humor :(--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PhysicalFitnet Why Spam?
How are we different than crossfit.com and exrx.net? They are everywhere on wikipedia. We are less commercial than them and all of our crontibutions are free of charge for everyone and topic related. Please we need an answer.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicalfitnet (talk • contribs) 11:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it's hard to judge it a content dispute when my first reversion of the edit pointed out the manifold WP policies the edit violates. when an "editor" (with less than a dozen edits, most on his/her own user page) inserts what constitutes defamatory info into a WP:BLP a second time after being warned, well, jimbo's own words are to remove aggressively, and the aggressive response is to revert the second addition as vandalism. perhaps i've overstepped. if so, my apologies. Anastrophe (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the section being added by the other party was unencyclopedic. But reverting a persistent editor over and over again for something other than blatant vandalism is rarely the most productive or effective approach--it can even get you blocked for violating 3RR if an admin is unsympathetic to your interpretation of vandalism. But I'm here to help. I've removed the trivia section (I loathe them) but have still included[35] a reference to an Entertainment Weekly interview where Bolton discusses Office Space. The disparaging language arousing your concern ("no talent assclown") has been removed but can be still be viewed via an external link to the aforementioned reliable source.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, i saw that. nicely done. for the record, i'm not a fan of michael bolton, i am a fan of office space, and i'm a strong believer in WP:BLP being written in a respectful manner for the person in question, no matter how much of a no talent assclown they may be. Anastrophe (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need to worry about this article being deleted anymore. Good job! Dethme0w (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My next concern is elevating the article to DYK standards, but this may be a pipe dream.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion review
Please do not post any more comments like this. I won't have the deletion review descend into the flame war that happened at the AfD. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Besides, I couldn't come up with another rant like that if I sat around all week.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your change of opinion, and admire your style greatly. I addressed your question to me in the RfA on the basis that it referred to the recent departures of User:Rlevse and User:Rudget, without even considering that it referred to my own spat with User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson, however, it is not an uncommon event for users to flounce out of here. The latter dispute, of course, I regret and am severely embarrassed about, as I since have moved on. I didn't expect to be running for admin so soon, and it is a bit of a roller-coaster, but I have no personal axe to grind against Jeffrey. I do get het-up sometimes about things that happen here, but that's perhaps just because I take it a little too seriously. Chill time. Regards --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'm unclear what "change of opinion" you're referring to.
I suppose people making a show of quitting only to return like nothing happened is a pet peeve of mine. I recommend the essay User:NoSeptember/Leaving for more on this topic. You are correct to point out that people--even editors I respect--seem to do it all the time. I just wish they would do it less, as I feel such spectacles damage an editor's credibility.
Also, last October, I felt you handled the situation with Gustafson poorly, but almost all of us have our regrettable moments. Heaven knows I've lashed out in frustration at more than a few admins during my time here (if you doubt this, just look at my talk page). As I stated in your RfA, your behavior then was a lone incident and not indicative of a pattern; that's why I didn't feel the need to specifically mention it.
The ironic thing regarding this sockpuppetry scandal is that JGO had a perfectly legitimate reason to oppose you--and should have done so using his own account--but instead his... er, roommate[36] chose to become involved, leading to the current fiasco. In any case, I think you'll make a fine admin and don't think what happened all those months ago should have much bearing now. Best wishes, --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re change of opinion, I can't put my finger on it right now, but I seem to remember seeing you change your position when it emerged that JOG might have used a sockpuppet. I will look at the essay you cite, I was previously unaware of it. But I agree. This place can be frustrating and for some the temptation to flounce out is irresistible, but of course a short-term stress reaction is no substitute for calm contemplation. I came here expecting, perhaps, a more collegiate atmosphere, but my expectations were soon turned around. I hope I addressed your question adequately, nonetheless. I regret my poor interaction with Jeffrey, but I was unaware that he was recently out of an ArbCom imposed desysopping, but I felt his unexplained deletions of images I was using was a bit bitey since at that time I wasn't as clued up on policy as I am now. As for the RfA, I agree that an oppose from Jeffrey himself would have been unarguable, and I was expecting it. I just didn't expect it to come, with such astonishing recall for detail, from his "room-mate". My mind remains open on that, but there is some explaining to be done to ArbCom. As you say, I have moved on. Many regards, and thanks for your thoughtful comments. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that Google Page Creator worked for you. Unless you already noted, there is an option to create additional websites (for example, I have Benjamin Rogers Texas when no Gmail address as such exists (as far as I know). As Google Page Creator gets popular, the telltale sub domain might attract the spam (electronic) industry to your Gmail address. You might want to use the option of creating a subdomain different from your email address, if you have not already done so.
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion. I am appreciative that you withdrew your initial opposition.--MONGO 08:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations of multiple accounts
You have asserted that I operate duplicate accounts due to the similar contributions that have been made by Nyjockboy2. That assertion however, is not a valid one. For documentation purposes I attest that I am the user of the Jvolkblum member account and that I am not the user of the Nyjockboy2 member account.
I am friendly with Nyjockboy2 and we have discussed many aspects of Wikipedia with eachother. Any similarities in contributions can be attributed to such interactions/ communications with eachother. I assure you there is no 'ill-will' on my part. I recognize the need for me to improve my user-skills and expand my overall understanding of the site + its structure. Hopefully that will preclude any misunderstandings in the future.
I am sorry, but I just don't believe you that User:Jvolkblum, User:Nyjockboy2 and now User:The5bricks are three different editors. Please stick to one account--especially if you're using multiple accounts to revert the edits of a single user, which it looks like you have been. However, I do appreciate your willingness to learn more about editing guidelines; it looks like you're starting to use edit summaries. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have offered an explanation to you for the concern you have raised and have offered my sincere apology as well. There was no intention of collusion between myself and the other user I am friendly with. Both of us are new to the site, and both are interested in similar topics etc. I am making attempts to increase my knowledge of the site and its rules to improve my overall contributions to the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvolkblum (talk • contribs) 14:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The wikilink to "cake" is the best :-) Mike R (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I wonder if Mr. Steinmetz chose the "cake" template 'cause you're so fuckin' fat. Mike R (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're the one who's been disclosing personal info about me onwiki! Why don't you post my Social security number while you're at it! Straight to ArbCom for you, buster.
Also, don't assume bad faith from our friend Mr. Steinmetz. Everyone likes cake, not just fat people (although, I'm admittedly a bit miffed about the "please save us all a piece" remark--what is he trying to say, that I eat too much?). At least the template doesn't link to the article about Cake. I really hate that band.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello The Fat. I happened by your talk page yesterday and saw this birthday announcement. With a little reluctance I must tell you that I proceeded to my !freewareImageEditingProgam to put together some sort of semi-humorous birthday image. It was going to have some jolly faces from paintings past plastered upon the balloons in Image:Balloons-aj.svg. After spending some time on this, I was not happy with the result, which probably could have changed with a few hours' extra work. But I became confused as to my primary intent—to learn more about !freewareImageEditingProgam, or to create a comparatively elaborate birthday wish for an entertaining fellow I barely know.
So let me just make it simple: Happy Birthday! –Outriggr§ 03:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Birthdays of Fat Men Past –Outriggr§ 07:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
This is truly outstanding. A whimsical masterwork befitting of my corpulent magnificence.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you enjoyed it! My only regret is that the fellows in the portraits I borrowed were not, shall we say, a little more obviously rotund. In my defense, it's not every day that one comes across something like your one-of-a-kind portrait. There will be some angry Rembrandt aficianados sniffing around here soon; please be prepared. Have your molecular balloon assembly ready to deploy! –Outriggr§ 01:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pornography
Hi, Wiktionary is a significant citation and should remain. Chessy999 (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a particularly reliable source; we could do better. But lets not fight; I'll wait until the good people at WP:RSN take a look at the page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you offer of an Admin
Thanks for the vote of confidence... but I must decline. While I may be noncontrovercial when editing Policy and Guideline pages... I think you would find some opposition from editors who work in my main area of article editing (articles relating to Freemasonry). But the main reason I decline is that I don't really want the responsibility and head aches that come with the job. I am happy being a regular old editor with a fairly good reputation. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into any spats you may have had with Freemasonry editors, but my sizable gut tells me you'd pass with very little opposition. RfA voters love editors who are articulate and well-versed in policy, even if a few grudge-bearing detractors emerged from the woodwork to oppose. I suppose I can't blame you, however, for not wanting to be an admin. If you ever change your mind, you'll see a lot of support.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly oppose this editor as he took on a Mediation between me and another editor and then allowed the other editor to personally attack me repeatedly over a period of time. He defended the other editor's lack of contribution to the solution of the mediation (after I had produced, with considerable effort, an outline at Blueboar's request which the other editor ignored) and in other ways Blueboar showed favoritism. I also think that an editor who regularly deletes his talk page so that it is extremely hard to retrieve comments there should not be an Amin. When I expressed unhappiness, albeit intemperately, after many posts to Blueboar in frustration and asking for help, he had me blocked with no warning, probably through the secret IRC channel as I notice that warnings are commonly issued for editors in good standing, which I am.
Also, although you told me you were not an Admin, I notice that you post on the secret IRC channel for Admins only, the subject of a current arbitration. How is that? Mattisse 15:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mattisse. I think you and Blueboar are both tremendously valuable editors (unlike TFMWNCB, who spends much of his wiki-energy making silly jokes). You mentioned the failed mediation case to me before, but I didn't realize Blueboar was the mediator you complained about; I believe Blueboar was referring to experiences like the one you described when he anticipated opposition from certain quarters. However, I only know him from his work on the reliable sources noticeboard and policy pages, where he does superb work, so he seemed like a good candidate to me.
As for admins who blank instead of archving their talk pages, you might find this recent discussion interesting.
And where in heaven's name did you get the impression that I'm on the Admins' IRC channel? I've probably signed onto IRC 4 times in my nearly 2 years editing Wikipedia.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got the impression you posted there as your name was on the IRC logs posted in the ongoing IRC Arbitration where is was established that only Admins and certain "privileges" editors (chosen by the buddy system) are allowed to post there. As far as Blurboar is concerned, I doubt he was referring to me specifically , as he has had a series to tendentious edit wars over certain articles on the subject of Freemasonry as he edits over a very narrow topic range and some of the same sock puppets bothering that subject were also bothering Starwood Festival related articles plus articles of those who tried to edit the Starwood article, such as User:Pigman and User:Kathryn NicDhàna (and other editors who have since left over the Starwood outcome) so I had his pages and their pages on my watch list. In fact, I believe I helped him and his editing pal at the time, User:MSJapan, attempt to catch some of the sock puppets. I do not know if he has had successful mediating outcomes, but the fact that he condoned bad behavior in the mediation I was involved in gave me a bad impression of him, as well as his appeal for a block for me, rather than responding to any of my postings on his page or trying to remedy the situation (and appealed to an Admin who has been reprimanded by Arbcom recently for his biased Admin behavior toward editors including me). Mattisse 15:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw your birthday notice on Outriggr's talk page: Happy happy belated birthday !! I hope it was fun (and I hope you're a Giants fan :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sandy, I had a lovely weekend. I attended a Joanna Newsom show and consumed sake and chicken hearts and donuts and octopus, but not all at the same time. Not a football fan, but enjoyed the game nonetheless--Tyree's helmet-assisted catch was unlike anything I've ever seen.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please stop violating wiki's rules by censoring my opinion on what images should be included.
my opinion is valid. stop censoring talk pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.24.39 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that Jvolkblum has the potential to do good for the community (see created articles) and you did sympathise with his position. However, I now see a changing attitude. Would you prefer an indefinite block, or if not, what other length? I've asked you this because of your position being the report submitter and being involved with this user over the past few weeks. Thanks. Regards, Rudget. 17:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I initially opposed an indefinite block, I believed the user was merely ignorant of our policies, which I attempted to explain to him. At that point, I thought he would cease or at least decrease his disruption; he even apologized[38] for his behavior. However, after that apology, Jvolkman turned around and created even more sockpuppets. I think he's having a bit of fun with me. More troublingly, his latest sockpuppets appear to be set up specifically to antagonize User:HMishkoff[39][40], a user with whom he has been engaged in a content dispute.
Therefore, if it were up to me, I would recommend an indefinite block. I would then encourage Jvolkblum to make an unblock request, where he can pledge to stop using abusive alternate accounts. If another admin finds him sincere, I'd be fine with offering him a final chance at that point. I truly appreciate your looking into this and seeking my input.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I accept those comments, and will personally recommend them to Jvolkblum if he seeks re-adminssion into the community after an indefinite block. He should therefore pledge to prevent any more of these sockpuppets being created, for at least in Wikipedia's interests, let alone his. Regards, Rudget. 17:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Fat Man, did you think I could top my pornography Peep Show photo I scored for that page (by the way, outside of Wiki that photo is being used in a movie - I was contacted to confirm the copyright release). Well, I give to you, submission number 2, which I think is going to *blow* your mind as a good addition to the pornography article: Image:Porn actors audition room by David Shankbone.jpg. Yes! An opportunity arose and I photographed the audition room for aspiring porn actors. Not just any studio, but Michael Lucas (porn star), "New York's King of Porn" (he said Lucas Entertainment is the 9th largest adult film company?) The shot is *so* porn! You're welcome to put it on the page if you like it enough. Truly an achievement for free culture - who else has stuff like this?! David Shankbone 23:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my friggin' God, you've done it again. I've never seen antyhing so iconically sleazy. I see you've been thinking along the same lines as me--that the picture deserves a prominent place in the pornographic film and porn star articles. I feel it's a bit too specific to replace your sex shop photo as the lead pornography image. On a somewhat related note, the pornography article is in appallingly miserable shape. The "Anti-pornography" movement section is so rambling and detailed that it dwarfs the rest of the article.... talk about undue weight. And the rest of the article--the part that's actually about porn--is almost completely unreferenced. It depresses me (not enough to do anything about it, of course, other than complain). But at least it has a nice lead image. Keep up the stellar photographic contributions.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha - yes I maybe overdecorated with the photo, but I was excited by how rare a gem like that is. Some ideas are hard to imagine, but some are hard to obtain - this one was both. I was glad to have everything fall into place, and that it has that *porn* look! Once you read what it is, it's like, 'Yes!' --David Shankbone 22:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slandering your good name
As I said, my fault. I actually tried to revert Sakura's edit to your talk page and report him, but reported you instead. Consider me slapped with a wet noodle. Xymmax (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more familiar with JV's Sarah Lawrence College-related edits, but it's a strong possibility. Can you tell me if FlanneryFamily is specifically restoring deleted material that Jvolkblum once added?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this link will not create a problem
I will not debate with your deletion of my note or the link. I expected it, and I don't have the time. However, I have added a link from UNESCO, New Delhi. I hope you will not remove this, even if you don't agree with this, this is a valid source and it adds a different point of view on the entire issue of human sexuality: a view different from the west. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity (talk • contribs) 15:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I restored and fixed Masculinity's external link on Gay, because it looked like it had been removed simply for being a "bad link". I hope you don't mind me occasionally stalking your edits. Mike R (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input here. This article really needed shaking by the scruff of the neck and User:Dwarf Kirlston and I put some informal effort into this a while ago, so a new perspective is particularly welcome, particularly in pruning some of the cruft that has crept in. In my dreams, this would be a featured article, because it would show that Wikipedia has the guts and the ability to be both bold AND authoritative. Meanwhile, may I be impertinent and ask why on earth you are not an admin? Your rational wisdom and sense of humour are impressive; your grasp of policy likewise. Have you ever thought about it? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FA status? May hat would be off to you if you ever brought that article up to snuff; currently, it has a loooooooong way to go.
There are plenty of reasons why I'm not an admin:
No one has nominated me
While I'm an experienced editor and am usually well-behaved, neither the quantity nor quality of my contributions is worth getting excited about. My snide talk page remark-to-Featured Article ratio currently generates a divide by zero error
I've made a lot of silly, questionable, and occasionally insulting edits that would certainly be brought to light were I to undergo an RfA. I tend to edit while drinking.
Re the article: your latest edit has removed a lot of stuff which is relevant, although its sources are dubious, and although I respect you a great deal, particularly since my RfA, when I came to know you better, I was close to blocking you for vandalism, and I don't want to go down that road. I, too, edit whilst drinking; but I don't lose sight of the goals of the project. I respect you too much to reject your input out of hand. But wholesale deletion of content without consensus is unconstructive in my view. Lord knows, it is a difficult enough job creating and maintaining other articles, without the additional hassle of reverting vandalism and non-notable additions to cunt. To be honest, I'd rather work with you than against you, because I appreciate where you're coming from. However, I'd be glad if you will cut some slack on the cunt article for a while and not hack & slash it about while whoever is interested knocks it into shape. Meanwhile, as far as RfA goes, snide is not a problem as long as you understand policy and have the right attitude, and my questionable edits during my own RfA were brought to light, and indeed, seemed overall not to have done me much harm. Meanwhile, I think that cunt should be reverted to restore your deletions until they can be viewed in the cold light of day, frightening though that may seem. Regards, --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you considered, as recently as today, blocking me for "vandalism," I'm probably not the future admin you're looking for. Any further discussion on Cunt can take place on that article's talk page. I have started a discussion there.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary; strong opinions, backed up by cogent arguments, are admirable qualities for an admin, although a modicum of humility is always valued too. You excel in all three, in my view. I fully agree with your comments at Talk:Cunt; it's become a mess, but mostly because nobody has seen fit to grasp the nettle and either remove unsourced nonsense or seek sources. We tried a few months ago, but this article is not high on the priority list, because sadly, the culture here is that however well-written or sourced, this article may never be either GA or FA, and I've already set out my stall on that point. Thanks a lot for starting a debate on content; it is long overdue, but there are apparently few regular editors interested. As for reverting you, I can't apologise for that, I just think that it is better to leave content there so it can at least be analysed, and if not sourced, or encyclopedic, removed. If the content is gone, a new editor, for example, cannot say "I know a source for that" and add it. Meanwhile, I would rather have you with me than against me; you are an excellent editor, and a benefit to the project. Your attitude rocks, and you'd make a great admin. Regards, --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wasn't demanding or expecting an apology for your revert--only an explanation, which you have provided. Perhaps I will try to offer some concrete ideas for improving rather than deleting those sections that I removed. I also appreciate the supportive words.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I disagree with your pessimistic view that certain articles, "however well-written or sourced" can never be promoted. I know that SandyGeorgia, Raul and company would promote this article in a heartbeat if they found it met our standards of content, organization and style. But currently, it is something of a mess. The more immediate obstacle--having to constantly weed the article from vandalism and clutter--is the primary impediment to progress.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then let us grasp that nettle, if we can; vandalism is easily countered by semi-protection and vigilance. Clutter is countered by provision of sources. Once the short-term problems have been overcome, we can look towards a more secure status for this article. I think if this can be achieved, there is little effort involved in achieving GA status. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, I'm going to have to unwatch your page until these edit summaries lighten up <grin> !! Yes, it could be promoted if it met WP:WIAFA ... but there's no imminent danger of that happening, since it's currently a mess (you said it first :-) And then there's Jane Fonda ... when you're ready for a serious peer review, just don't start a section heading on my talk page LOL !!! Did I hear mention of the Fat Man for admin ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember when, how or why the Fat Man's talk page became an freewheeling, X-rated den of iniquity, but it seems to have happened a very long time ago. So avert your eyes, and please enlist Meredith Vieira to apologize on my behalf. Anyhow, I know SG doesn't discriminate--I see you churning out those wonderful assessments of articles of sundry nature: video games, 90s grunge bands, sacred Mormon artifacts, Baroque palazzi and military vehicles all demand equal time. So if, by some miracle, we ever ready ourselves to approach FA's gates with the C-bomb, I will do my best to leave your talk page unscathed. And Adminship? Please. My RfA will take place right after yours and will go considerably less smoothly.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could launch a two-fer !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Apologies, I didn't mean to remove your worthy edits here, just restore butchered content pending consensus for its trimming. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbole etc
Aww Fat Man, you are truly phat with that phunny sense of humor you have that brings levity when people take themselves too seriously : ) --MPerel 14:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been noticed and mentioned in my blog [41]. Normally I would pay absolutely no notice of you, little grease spot. Thanks for causing so much disruption on Wiki. 76.191.142.203 (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, that's some blog. I was with you up until the part about strangling Jimbo with your bare hands. Tsk tsk. I know someone who would prefer you didn't link to sites that threaten Wikipedians with violence. Repent of your sins.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you really hit the big time there. May I have an autograph? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my autograph would be worth much at this time. The harasser-blogger's profile has, like, 78 views and 2 of those are from me. I'm finally in a BADSITE, and it's one that no one ever reads. I like that the blogger, of all things, is mad at me about Patrick M. McCabe's page--a schoolboy's self-congratulatory autobiography that I nominated for deletion more than a year ago, along with several other of the kid's pet pages. I actually thought Patrick liked me--he's left me quite a few notes on this talk page--but I guess his friends are not such big fans of the Fat Man.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was EricBarbour. He thinks by logging out nobody will know who he is. IrishGuytalk 17:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the first image better, because it's more dog-centric. I just started the Dogbook over the weekend; no one really knows about it yet, and the gallery is virtually empty. However, I was pleased that WP:FA bigwig and former arbitrator Raul654 has already contributed; that's a good sign. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maric
Maric redirects to Marić, and I found that the Japanese publisher of Yu-Gi-Oh! had written the name "Marik Ishatr" as "Maric" in a Japanese volume - The purpose of a disambig page or a redirect page is to point the reader to the right place. It may sound strange, but anything that is somehow notable is eligible for a redirect. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"make it a hat note)" - What do you mean by a "hat note"? I have never heard of such a term before. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A hat note is an navigational notice we put at the top of some articles. The Yu-Gi-Oh character has absolutely nothing to with the Slavic surname, so rather than adding the character to the list, a hat note will point readers to other articles they might be looking for.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok - That is a good solution :) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This edit was not a good approach to resolving differences you might have about the category. I suggest you not do that sort of thing again. ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Lar. I'm not an admin and thus cannot view deleted page contributions. I'm sure that whatever I wrote (I can't remember specifically) was intended as a light-hearted joke, rather than a sincere "approach to resolving differences"--although I happy to have provoked an interesting discussion on jc37's page. If you have a better, more effective, less jokey solution to the dilemma, we would all love to hear it.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, you flatter me! But we both know I'm worthless as a writer. However, I might have a couple ideas (and cannot guarantee they will be good). But let's say I did have a brilliant idea; where could I discuss it with others, without spoiling the joke?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps the talk page of that particular dispatch could be a good gathering place? You'd have to find editors willing to help; since I close FACs, I'd have to stay out and stay neutral, although I'm willing to dig in and fix MoS issues if they are non-controversial. The clock is ticking, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of a way to fix this without the full block message - follow the instructions for the template and I'd be happy to fix this for you. Kurutalk 01:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's very sweet of you, but I think I'll just wait until the autoblock expires tomorrow. I have dishes to do and Youtube videos to watch.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you change your mind, just repost the unblock template in full. I've disabled it to remove you from the category of unblock requests. - auburnpilottalk 01:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I tried to catch up, but I'm trying to get work done. Fat Man, when you get back, let me know if we're not supposed to chat on user talk pages; I always thought that was OK, and I always chat with Outriggr and Ceoil, as I always saw on Bish's talk page. I'm confused. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I lack the intelligence and contribution history of any of the three you mentioned, so I'm kept I'm on a tighter leash. But all is well, and I'll contribute some content in due time. I certainly haven't forgotten about our special project; I did some research on Sunday and will make some modest improvements to the article in coming days. Cheers, --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I blocked him for user impersonation (the use of one user name that could be construed to be another). Ironically, it's often done for the safety of the original user. I'll lift the autoblock to allow this account to edit (per an email that I received off-wiki), but the second account stays blocked. - Philippe | Talk 02:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done Fat man. [43] is one of the wittiest posts I've seen so far on teh internet. I can only repay my undying respect with guns, drugs, you tube links, or what ever you request by email. Ceoil (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I adore that version! And how apropos of those 61 minutes last night when order briefly triumphed over corpulent mischief. BTW, in that diff you posted, I wasn't trying to be funny. What's funnier is that the arbitrator who scolded me was the one who unblocked my sock.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get the whole thing. I'm afraid I'm going to get my hand slapped any minute for goofing around on user talk pages. That Darn Pollyanna Thingie. :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. They didn't block me intentionally--they hardblocked blocked my IP after I created an obvious impersonator account. Trouble was the impersonator was, well, me (this is not the first time I've been blocked, btw). So engage in all the talk page merriment that you desire; just don't create any accounts called, say, User:MandyGeorgia or some such.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what I was thinking when I came up with SandyGeorgia anyway. Scary. Almost as scary as Mandy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, I'm sorry I set a bad example for you, TFMWNC. (The difference is, you're well recognized, and you just created that account, whereas I created a preemptory alternate spelling of my name way back when and thought of using it when I couldn't log in to my primary.) Again I get the feeling that important people prefer that Wikipedia receive non-mainspace edits that involve templating things, creating and analyzing dramas, or arguing over absolute minutiae, to non-article space edits that are amusing, odd, thought-provoking, or in general create some sense of psychosocial decorum in an online environment that tends toward the sterile. Now, you and I may be unreliable decorum creators (decorators?)—me now talking to myself, you and your den of iniquity—but we try, and it creates no trouble. (This, tongue in cheek.) The place, as usual, carries on with too little inspiration or human resource sensibility in high places, substituted by an over-wary micromanagement that focuses not on edits, but on the very editor identities it purports don't exist because all is anonymous. All together now, We Can Talk! Good thing Ms. MandyGeorgia is looking out for ya! –Outriggr§ 10:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Your username is so long that I must have become exhausted while abbreviating it. I was not in fact making any assumptions about your private life. –Outriggr§ 03:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm not the only one making snide remarks about your virility now. It's a new meme, I think? –Outriggr§ 04:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's his pennance for making me come to pages with that word on them te he he. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is molto unacceptablo! The Fat Flaccid Man Who Rarely, if Ever, Came Back has had his fill of both of you rascals and your locker-room barbs. Remember, Ms. Georgia, I can go on a diet, yet you will always be.... really, really.... sandy.... aw, nuts. Let me try again. In her 93 years, Miss Ima may have rejected an eager procession of 30 suitors, but this is only because none of them possessed the gravitas, the substance, the swollen magnificence of this guy and his little friend (not pictured). In closing, I can only bemoan the fact that WP:STOCKS is a precious, warmed-over wikijoke and not an actual form of online punishment--after the beating my manhood has received, I would love nothing more than to escort both of you there without any supper.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your talk page never disappoints, Fat Man. You are loved. --David Shankbone 05:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If you were female, there would be wiki-wedding bells. But you not; so best I can offer is a manly tap on the head. Ceoil (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ewwww! My friend invited me to the Armory Show this afternoon (admission is 30 dollars a person!). If I'll be subjected to images like that, the Fat Man would rather stay home! The artists herself is kind of cute, though.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:D
I like the edit summary [44]. No worries it happens to all of us. Happy editing. Tiptoetytalk 01:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I will keep an eye out for it. Tiptoetytalk 02:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Goya's blackest painting
Dear TFMWNCB, I have long enjoyed your sense of humor from afar, and consider myself honored to find your handiwork on my talk page. Would that I could respond in kind now, but that will have to come naturally, and in good time. For the moment, Goya stays. Cheers, JNW (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, here goes: JNW (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I love it! He looks so disaffected and jaded; great stuff! I returned to your talk page and experimented further. Let me know if you prefer the Goya or the Rubens--what is it with that guy and infanticide?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Great. The thing about Rubens is, his draftsmanship is so immaculate you almost forget to be horrified. JNW (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Fat Man's date canceled tonight, so it appears I will have an abundance of free time to see if there are any porcine puns to be had.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, so a corset back then was the equivalent of implants today, only a lot less expensive. You've got to get friends to get this image for us. [45]SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'm confused. Why would we credit The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston for an image obtained from http://www.gscs.rice.edu? What am I missing? ЭLСОВВОLДtalk 01:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a continuing ed course, offered by Rice University, in conjunction with Bayou Bend[46], which was Hogg's estate and was donated to the MFAH. The portrait is from a print from that collection. That is why the archivist was able to identify it in the email I sent you. So, basically, although the picture appears on a website from Rice University, the portrait itself belongs to the museum. Let me know if that clears up the confusion.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much!!!! My only question is why does the public domain tag say "between 1978 and March 1, 1989"? What do those dates have to do with this particular image?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, Karanacs got me confused (apparently not too difficult today); she mentioned an image had been used in her book (published 1984), and I had remembered it as being this one. Looking now, I was wrong. Back to the PD drawing board; I will solve this. ЭLСОВВОLДtalk 01:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm content now. The new tag has the verbiage "often because", which doesn't tie us to absolutely being published before 1923 (which is likely, but not confirmed). ЭLСОВВОLДtalk 02:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are wonderful; which one of you gets to do the honors at Miss Ima? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody's gotta add it (how do you do a coin toss on the internet)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the date, she would have been around 20 in that photo, so maybe it should go in the Education section, since I think we'll later have images of Bayou Bend for the art section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't stand the waiting; gonna add it myself. So there. Thanks, guys !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I knew we could wait her out; excellent. ЭLСОВВОLДtalk 22:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You bum; I wanted you to do the honors :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sandy, I think it's a lovely addition. And thank you so much, Elcobbola, for negotiating that nightmarish labryinth of copyright templates. SG, I will help with the new task you've assigned me. Composing plaintive emails to strangers is one of my stronger suits.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs has gotten a lot of content in now, and we should go to FAC by about Tuesday; in your next chat with them, do you think you can ask them to view the article and see if there is anything glaringly missing or wrong? Was she ever engaged or not? We found a reference to a fiance who died in WWI that was questionable, not verified by the books. If it's true, we would need a source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are great questions. She seems to know a lot about Miss Ima's life, so perhaps she can help us. I'll ask the archivist to have a look at the article.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and ... I know you can do this, and no one else can do it better ... we need something in the lead that, while factual and sourced, makes the reader go, "Is this for real, or am I being fooled?" Put your considerable linguistic talent to work:-) You've got time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, ha. I've thought about this for quite some time, but I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to convey humour/absurdity without resorting to what might be interpreted as mean jokes at this woman's expense! However, if the inspiration seizes me, I may try my hand at some playful wordsmithing.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did all the damage I could do; she's all yours now ! Pls fix my indignities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better; unless someone objects/changes, do you want to add it? I'm going to be busy later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet Slander!
Why have you slandered me? What recourse do I have against your slander that I am some sockpuppet? I will find the proper authorities to report your false allegations to. How do we know you aren't really the sockpuppet and are covering your tracks? I didn't sign up for this! --MRPL8 (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I pray that you are able to locate said authorities before someone blocks you. I am an admitted sockpuppeteer, but my sockpuppets don't engage in disruption of AfD voting.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been reported and noted as a sockpuppet. Very clever accusing others to hide your tracks. --MRPL8 (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My dear Fat Man, as I was driving by your talk page (which I've adjusted my regular route and made a habit to do since the scenery here is so pleasant and joyful and always makes me smile) and saw the above comment, I had to peek at your "pudgy" block log and was utterly fascinated that you were at one time on 26 Oct 2006 blocked "with an expiry time of infinite". Imagine that! Being blocked for infinity by a mere finite being, that's quite a trick! And it apparently lasted all of four minutes. Dearest Fat Man, I'm blazing to know what it was like during those four minutes you were lost into the infinite realms. Please fill me in. --MPerel 05:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why, thank you for the kind words; indeed, I am pleased that my talk pages is a continued source of merriment and hilarity for man, woman and child. While I am accustomed to seeing "indefinite" blocks (I've got one of those on my rap sheet as well), an infinite block is a rare honor. The former is tentative, wishy-washy and uncertain while the latter is a bona fide damnation, a free ticket to perdition. The Inferno was a marvelous place; while there, I consorted with Willy on Wheels, drank Ovaltine with Malacoda and had an eye-opening colluquy with Dave Thomas (founder of Wendy's) on the dangers of trans fats. But like Dostoevsky, hooded before the gallows, I was pardoned at the last moment, and brought swiftly back to the land of the living before I could even say goodbye to all my new friends. I suggest that Wikipedians organize a movable feast each October to honor the occasion.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I love your name
And although I can but hope, my moniker will never be up to your sterling standards! A Rather Hot Donkey Named Bob (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, my friend. I'm still largely convinced that this was you, but--even if I'm correct--I'm realizing that Mr. Fat probably isn't the inimitable User:Spotteddogsdotorg. I believe you showed up here[49] at an inauspicious time. I shall set about improving my sleuthing skills. Cheers, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Mr Fat was a stupidly drunken attempt at creating a new account following my wish to start afresh following the recent Arbcom debacle I was involved in under the original account. My first edit was relating to your comment that you were a self-confessed sockpuppeter, at the time I didn't realise you had made a joke account as a puppet. My sock worries are just on the high side at the moment following the case I referred to. Anyway, time to move on A Rather Hot Donkey Named Bob (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, once I realized that I was not the butt of your FatSexuallyActive joke (which was clever, btw), my opinion of you softened somewhat (especially once I learnt of the actual target of your barb). However, now that it's clear you're not Mr. Spotteddogsdotorg, I really must apologize for wrongly associating you with his bizarre antics. Few users edit under the influence of alcohol more frequently than yours truly, so I can't fault you for that either. Peace be unto you, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New troll
Re: to your e-mail, I think you've got a separate troll on your hands. It appears the actual similarity is following you around! Lucky you. :) —Wknight94 (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you an Administrator, Because I'd Like To Report Some Abuse
I never accussed anybody of racism, but I do think there is some prejudice. Also, Jimbo Wales never was the one who erased my content, it was another user named SqueakyBox. This is unfair, and I want justice.Kevin j (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm not an administrator, and if you're looking for "fairness" or "justice" you're probably on the wrong website. My advice to you: don't engage SqueakBox, and don't argue with him; it's useless. Stop edit warring. I have only had positive experiences with Theresa Knott, but if you have a legitimate complaint about her, your best bet is to attempt to express your concerns as calmly and as rationally as possible; otherwise, people will be disinclined to take you seriously. That may not be fair or just, but it is the most effective way to get people to listen.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack
By restoring the personal attack of another user you are taking responsibility for that attack against Theresa. Please don't. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As someone whose opinion I respect, and I know has trenchant views on trivia/cruft generally, I would welcome your eye over this article, since I seem to be the only one working on it at present and hopefully taking it in the right direction. I have chopped a load of irrelevant and unsourced stuff and done some major rewrites. I'd welcome your comments when you have time. Bear in mind, please, it's a work in progress, very much so. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I haven't replied yet; can I look over the article the weekend? I can give you some feedback at that time.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do; a second pair of eyes would be welcome, but don't feel obligated. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel no pressure, and I like to help; but I'm currently tied up in Hogg heaven. Should have more time soon.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'da bomb
Yes, I was forced to post under that. In the "Things You Never Knew" Department, your name just came up at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Fat Man is not an obese nuclear weapon! He is here to spread love, create mischief and to waste everyone's valuable wikitime, not blow them to smithereens. Take a trip to the Fat Man disambiguation page and educate thyself (pay special attention to the talk page!)--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To all of the excellent editors who were part of the Karanacs-led collaboration to bring Ima Hogg to featured status, it was a pleasure working with you on such a fine article about a great lady. Thank you so much for your contribution to this fun collaboration.
Raul's instructions are right up your alley: "As with last year's April 1 FA, for this one time of year, I don't care if the write up is totally different from the lead in, and I encourage you to be as outlandish or misleading as possible, provided it's all true." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I owe you many, many favors, MandyGeorgia, and possibly an assortment of chocolates to boot. I believe the suggestions by Karanacs and Ferrylodge are hilarious; if you like, I can spin them together into a coherent paragraph, but I can't guarantee you will like it.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you do the fixin' at User:Raul654/test? I'll stay out of your way for now, but we need to get rid of those late-breaking inaccuracies, and get back to some of your/Outriggr version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tickled; go to bed, watch your brain !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure my detractors on the Main talk page would not disagree with you :-) I'm still waiting for the deranged, pathological laughter to set in..... --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, phooey on 'em, not even a second thought ... as you know, no one else coulda done it, and no one else did do it. Go read last year's and you tell me which blurb is funnier. Toast !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<waves at the Fat Man, now just a speck on the horizon, as he and global helium prices reach new highs> –Outriggr§ 02:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If one is willing to shop around, there are other elegant ballooning options. JNW (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An edit summary that says so long is not funny; what, man, have you lost your brains ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was just trying to provide visuals for Outriggr's narration. But I need formatting help.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to format help, only refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Fat Man, I didn't realize that maybe you are annoyed right now about certain commentary, in which case my comment might have seemed like rubbing it in. Especially in light of your recent support of my community ban, which has so far not proceeded, I should be more careful. But you see, I view you as perma-mirth. ;) –Outriggr§ 03:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Community ban? My good man, I merely suggested a merry jaunt over to Wikiquette Alerts. And I just caught onto your hot air joke and boy am I, er, steamed. Might I suggest that these hurtful fat jokes are starting to wear a bit.... never mind.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that naked guy still hanging off the window ledge over at your house? I hope his weanie didn't freeze. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, when I saw this edit summary, I initially assumed it was a slur against your portly servant's presumed dejection! I thought, Jesus, I'm not that upset! I was relieved to discover you were merely referring to Jus zis Guy, you know. Now take your dick jokes to this page. My talk page is a classy joint.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a page. I haven't seen such a fine collection of dicks since ... oops ... where was I going with that thought .. backing slowly out of the room. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I'm glad your not on the ledge, TFMWNCB, and that calm has returned to the community. I must stop here, but... the imagery of firemen with the bouncy-trampoline thing running to a certain spot under the ledge, and the ensuing bounce or lack thereof, well, that's a tough one to just shake off! –Outriggr§ 04:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that, among the complainers, there isn't a single featured article, there certainly isn't a featured article in two weeks, and I'm sure that there's not a blurb, much less a funny blurb. Go read Talk:Ima Hogg, where you've got 'em going. When you make it look easy, of course the armchair quarterbacks are going to pop a Bud lite and whine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) I realize that you put a lot of work into the mainpage banner, and it's good, but I honestly think you're too close to this. :/ I really do write this kind of stuff for a living, I wish you could trust my judgment. But ah well, I'm done with reverting too. --Elonka 13:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the really nice note, and for what it's worth, I didn't think that your comments were that out of line, more I felt that another editor was being repeatedly uncivil about it in comments and edit summaries. Just as you worked hard on the Main Page blurb, I worked hard on that banner, and it hurt for it to be called "awful" as though I was doing it in bad faith or something.
I hear what you're saying about the experience of last year's April Fools article. I saw it too, but I remember thinking at the time, "Okay, it's funny, but it could be funnier. My guess is that some people are getting the joke, but that most people are just scratching their heads, and finding it more frustrating than funny." Your own experience with it is a good case study, as you found it hugely frustrating to begin with, but did take the time to dig deeper into it later, and you found it rewarding. However, if we look at the bell curve of how other folks perceived it, I think it was only a minority of people who actually enjoyed it, and that most of the others just got to the "frustrating" part and then bailed, rather than pursuing it any further. In terms of the Ima Hogg situation, without the banner, based on the comments at the talkpage, it seems that that was indeed the impression of many, that they ended up just perplexed rather than amused. Some people definitely got it, but I think that most didn't.
It's always a balance, designing a joke, or a puzzle. The writer has to decide who their target audience is, and choose whether they're going to write for the super-smart that will get it, while the rest are dumbfounded? Or write something that's accessible to the mainstream, even if a few of the geniuses find it "dumb"? I think that most Wikipedia editors are definitely on the high end of the IQ bellcurve (with a few notable exceptions, heh!). But precisely because we're really smart, we have to be careful that we don't write articles that are only accessible to the smart. Wikipedia policies on this are that we've already decided that our target audience is the "mainstream" audience. So I felt that with the banner, I was helping to make the joke more mainstream-accessible.
Again, going back to your own experience, I think it's a great thing that you went in and took a look at the article later to dissect what happened. I wanted more people to have that kind of enjoyment. :) It was my feeling that with the banner, more people would have gotten that "treasure hunt" fun, and would have learned some interesting stuff along the way! I also think that more people would enjoy seeing the other Wikipedia pranks, which is why I had the Wikipedia:April Fools link there as well. Yeah, I know about the namespace restriction, but I felt it was a perfect day to "lift the veil" and let the public backstage a bit, to share the humor with the cast and crew. Otherwise the humor takes a bit of a darker turn, as in, "The cast is playing a joke on the audience," and it gets a bit less friendly. I always prefer humor where everyone gets to laugh, as opposed to one side having a "one-up" on the other side.
I'm really sorry that the situation turned into a confrontational one, and that it was unpleasant for you or anyone else that worked on the joke. It wasn't my intention to step on any toes, I was genuinely trying to get with the spirit of the thing, and maximize enjoyment for as many people as possible. Your writing on the Mainpage was good! I just tried to help out, in the Wikipedia way, to do what I could to make it even better. :) --Elonka 02:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Banner
I'm glad I was asleep when that awful banner went on the page, completely defeating the entire purpose of April Fools. I would have jumped into my computer to eat brains if I'd been awake. I don't know how long it was up, but how unfortunate that it should spoil April Fools for whatever few people saw it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good gosh, I just checked; that thing was up for a full four hours !!! One-sixth of April Fools spoiled !! I'm glad you were around to deal with it, Fat Man. I'da been on the ledge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Fat Man is Awesome
The Barnstar of Good Humor
I award this Barnstar of Good Humor to The Fat Man Who Never Came Back for his excellent work in writing the April Fool's Main Page blurb. Miss Ima would approve. ... And if not, she'd be too much a lady to say so ;) Karanacs (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I loved the blurb. Thanks for your hard work! Karanacs (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thrilled that you enjoyed it! You did amazing work with that article, and I look forward to collaborating with you again.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take Your Tomato !!
"Whoever wrote the fake Ima Hogg bio might want to think about pursuing a career in screenwriting. It sounds more amusing than any of the movies I've seen recently... " [50]
Well done, Fat Man; I liked your main page Ima. TONY(talk) 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job with the blurb. I enjoyed reading it before I read Ima Hogg, and also after - to figure out how everything fit. Look forward to 2009! Abecedare (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excatly so, and I forgive you for wanting to leave my Cunt alone for a while. Figuratively speaking, of course. Much kudos to you. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rfa question
I thought your question in Lawrence Cohen's Rfadmin was really interesting, good one! Its the kind of question that should be added as a general template question (lie questions 1-3) as anyone who cannot answer it shouldn't be an admin and its just a valuable question. No idea whether you are asking just selected admins as I dont follow Rfa but it should be asked of all candidates. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That was a great question. Lawrence § t/e 23:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you, Squeak and Lawrence. I rather enjoyed the question and LC's answer to it. Even if other editors agreed with you that it was a good question (they clearly do not), I believe the question is a tad too inflammatory to be added to the standard trio. However, you might find me asking a similar question once or twice in the future. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should join. Indeed, you should be the team leader. You have to smoke cigars, however, and say "I love it when a plan comes together" at regular intervals. You also have to come back once a week. Does your CV match these requirements? Geometry guy 21:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. You probably don't need anyone else telling you how fantastic was this April 1, so I won't mention it. Oops I did: massive kudos to all involved.
That name is certainly long--and certainly odd--but it doesn't make me laugh. If I'm not mistaken, FSIWBAMC is a sockpuppet of User:That Guy, From That Show!, a user name which I find slightly more amusing than that of his alterego.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I kindly ask that you revert your self here. I, like others, may disagree with Kurt, but an individual's RFA is not a battleground nor is it an area of discussion for an individual's actions. An individual's RFA is a place for members of the community to "vote" or comment on whether a certain member should have the admin bit. Contrary to your edit summary, Kurt's comment is of course relevant to the discussion at hand (no matter how controversial it is) while (I think we can both agree here) User:Personal use's comment has nothing to do or add to this specific discussion, rather it should be addressed only to Kurt's talk page. Thanks. « Gonzo fan2007(talk ♦ contribs) 23:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The flashing text is a nice idea, Fat Man, but I was wondering if whiting text is a better idea... -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 07:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is something to consider! Perhaps we could also take a queue from certain Victorian-era publishers of The Canterbury Tales, who would inexplicably translate the bawdy passages into Latin!! White, strikethrough, blinking text, Latin! We need to discuss all of these exciting possibilities on the WP:BLINK talk page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! It seems that the Strapping Young Lad article still has some issues.. Could you help me improve the article's grammar? And probably its lead too. I'm kinda stuck here, as English is not my first language, I can't really make the grammar better. Gocsa (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I've found this interview http://www.hevydevy.com/press/online_interview/2005_zerotolerance.html, it's from Zero Tolerance Magazine, here Townsend talks about how he stopped taking medication during the recording process of Alien, I think it's a good source. Of course, I will reference the magazine, and the article itself, not this site. I'd like to ask your help: he never mentions in this or other interviews that this influenced particularly or exclusively his lyrics (although he states that Alien: "Lyrically, it’s the most extreme I’ve ever been"), but the whole record itself, so this 'no medication' stuff should be mentioned somewhere else, not in the Lyrical themes section.. Do you think it's OK for the Musical style section? Or the Influences (although this is only about the bands that influenced them..)? Gocsa (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and there's this one as well http://www.hevydevy.com/press/online_interview/2005_interview_mh.html, it's from Metal Hammer. Gocsa (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, never mind, I've taken care of it:) Gocsa (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gocsa, nicely done. Devy explicitly discusses his bipolar disorder in that interview; moreover, an "extreme metal" magazine like Zero Tolerance is (regrettably, perhaps) as close to a reliable source as we're ever going to get; I don't think Vanity Fair is beating down his door for an interview. I'm still not sure it will satisfy the FAC crew, but I think it's the best we can do. I'll help out with some copyediting when I have more energy. I'd be happy for you if this makes FA.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The illustrious SandyGeorgia pointed me to your page, as she put me in what seems to be the small but excellent company of editors who leave interesting edit summaries, along with Yomangani. She, apparently, found this one compelling. As my familiarity with wikithings is shameful, when said things are not part of my teeny but happy world, I had to inquire if there was a list of these interesting edit summaries someplace. Ms. Georgia suggested you might be interested in keeping such a list. I maintain that she has presented this façade of where she is located only to get me to divulge my stories about inebriated transportation specialists. --Moni3 (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Moore redux
Fat Man, I replied with some research that will hopefully calm the jittery masses. --Laser brain(talk) 03:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bosch
"I have mostly repented of my sins". Yeah the Divine may have left you off the hook, but some of us mortals have longer memories. War broke out last night, and now a friend of Outriggr is an enemy of mine, friend of Outriggr. Ceoil (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't fret Ceoil, it follows that you will have exceedingly few enemies. Though, Fat Man and I are discussing in covert channels the merits of a certain pick-up attempt rumored to have occurred somewhere. Blacklist him! –Outriggr§ 03:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Fat Man winces) Creativity??? I beg to differ! Your detractors are imbeciles and would do well to study the masters for a semester or two.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fat-Man-came-back
He musta blamed it all on us
We were wrong
And we just can't live without him
Fat-Man-came-back
He would always drool when we
Put a finger sandwich
just beyond a flabby arm's reach
Why, thank you, Outriggr; the Fat Man has been rather depressed in recent days, and your cheery lyrics bring a smile to my weary, blubbery..... wait a minute... finger sandwiches? FLABBY ARM? Drool????? This is the last straw. Just because an uncharitable glance at my article stats might suggest that Hors d'œuvres are sixth on my list of top wikipriotiries (right after pornography and right before [nervous chuckle]... never mind), the appalling inference that said list concords with my real-life preoccupations is a staggeringly monumental assumption of bad faith! Now, if you'll excuse me, I have several ounces of errant prosciutto and melon to retrieve from between the folds of my belly.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All in good fun, of course. I'll courtesy-blink the second stanza—because you'll notice the first is really flattering, and in my defense, there just aren't a lot of punning options with these lyrics. But if that 1-a-blinking–2-a-blinking–3-a-blinking–4-a-blinking rhythm should happen to etch the song into your head all the more, then I suggest you give in to it. A night of old vinyls and Courvoisier is just what DoctrRiggr ordered. –Outriggr§ 01:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to your editing habits, I must admit that there are very few situations in which this edit would not have one super-blocked! Well done! I agree! –Outriggr§ 02:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fat Man, hope you don't mind.[52] WP:BALZAC. This works, maybe, on a number of levels. Can I keep saying "all in good fun"? –Outriggr§ 22:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A request
If I could... you were recommended as a good copy editor by another editor, Davemeister. I was wondering if you could give M-35 (Michigan highway) a once over at least. I've nominated it for FAC, but an uninvolved editor's perspective would be appreciated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't how this rumor that I'm a competent copy editor got started; I'm certainly not an industrious copy editor. Seeing that I've already broken several promises to review and edit articles, I'd prefer not to disappoint yet another nice Wikipedian. Regrets, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bosch, Richard Pryor, beer, and double entendre
Hi Fat Man. In two years and change, I've never given anyone a beer picture. You see this meme strewn about the talk pages, as if to say, "yes, while I am geeky enough to partake of Wikipedia, I still enjoy the common man's pleasures—here's a virtual beer". So here you have it—this one's for you. For your unyielding good will, your engaging mock bluster, and your prowling of territory that keeps the other users focused on the straight and narrow, I offer you an infinitely expanding beer mug. It is a brandless beer—would the Godhead brew a perfect one and then give it a name?—no, we don't need brands. Perhaps it's a fifteen-century beer, you're a butcher, I'm a baker with a sideline, and we raise a glass to our delight in keeping the town fed (with your way being much more vile). –Outriggr§ 00:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers to you, Outriggr! I think, by the way, that "Godhead" would be an excellent brand name for a 40-ounce malt liquor (care to invest in my home brewery?) Let me try something:
This beer mug expands to an arbitrary size (viz SVG), particularly appropriate for The Fat Man.
You never disappoint. Everyone, hop into the Godhead! –Outriggr§ 12:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts
Remember me? :) Okay, well, where to start. I'll keep it simple. Have you thought about where you want to progress from here? Administratorship seems like a reasonable stem, in my opinion. Rudget (Help?) 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Rudget I remember you. You help me out when I need admin assistance, and I seem to see you voting in a lot of RfAs. Though I could certainly stand to improve myself IRL, I don't plan on "progressing" anywhere online. In all likelihood, assisting with the Ima HoggFAC and the April Fool's Day mainpage was the zenith of my Wikipedia contributions--it was fun, and I adore my brilliant, article-building wikicolleagues, but I found the whole thing rather stressful; since then my intention has been to lapse quietly into wikiobscurity, though I will occasionally emerge to offer copyedits, userspace yuks, or snarky personal attacks. Though I crave the power, riches and throngs of beautiful women to which a promotion to administrator would undoubtedly entitle me, I am neither qualified for the role nor interested in the (understandable) beating I'd receive in an RfA--at heart, I'm a very sensitive fellow. Also, the fact that I haven't made good on my promise to clean up/rewrite several articles suggests I am not particularly reliable. I hope this answers your question.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's absolutely fine. If you need any other admin help, you can always ask. Rudget (Help?) 09:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy has (succinctly) raised another objection I neglected to enumerate--I exceed my recommended daily allowance of processed, cured meats by a staggering margin; shouldn't administrators be in excellent cardiovascular health? You don't want them dropping dead while waiting for them to unprotect your favourite article or to block that vexatious sockpuppeteer, do you?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pepperoni. And take a tour through RfA sometime if you want to see how wrong things are when editors like you aren't admins in relation to some others who are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Yeah, you might take a drubbing, but damn do I enjoy your posts. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I owe you some cannoli for that. Granted, these don't look like the ones I grew up with (no red whatever that is), but you can see from the picture that I have sampled one myself. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother debating issues - user just wants to mess around Editor437 (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to assume good faith, but thanks for pointing this out--clearly, this chap is up to no good.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Karanacs
Just to let you know, it hasn't gone live yet. I recommend you watchlist it and come back when it does go live. Enigmamessage 02:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finally trying to live up to your username? ;) Karanacs (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, something like that. Since you have ungratefully disregarded my premature support, I'm going to oppose you when you go live, out of pure spite. On a more serious note, I wish I had a few of your writing and research chops. I'm trying to rescue a hopeless FAC from certain failure, but my article-salvaging skills are mediocre at best. Sigh, who will help nitwits like me when we have nowhere else to turn?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fatman (Batman comics)
you wrote:
Dchmelik, do we have an article--or even a fraction of an articlethat alludes to Fatman, the
Batman character? I would love to see a picture of him, btw
Is this enough to return the definition? I do not think it needs an entire article, though the DC Database mentions another Fatman, so it might need 2 definitions or an article.--Dchmelik (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the funniest thing I've ever seen in my life. It makes me cry that this image is copyrighted, because that really belongs in the encyclopedia somewhere.
Concerning the inclusion of Mr. Fatman on the Fat Man disambiguation page, I would first suggest adding some information about him to some article about Batman characters. Then, only list him on the dab page if you link to the appropriate article and section. Thanks for introducing me to the best character ever.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there is only 1 page on Batman characters, and since Fatman only appeared once, I think adding him or many other such characters to that page would clutter it... but it might still be nice to have it on the fatman page, which will still show up in 'Batman' search results.--Dchmelik (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You have previously indicated your interest in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Karanacs, by directly editing that page before its transclusion. In order to improve the discussion there (and without trying to persuade you either to support or to oppose), I'm simply writing to tell you that the RfA is now live, and to encourage you to participate. Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words at my RfA. Ima Hogg is my favorite of the projects I've worked on, and your hard work and great sense of humor was a big reason that was so much fun. I really do appreciate the vote of confidence and will try hard to make sure it wasn't misplaced. Karanacs (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err...
Hello again, Fat Man. I was looking through this, when I found this. Does it look funny to you? -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 03:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
The Surreal Barnstar
I was astonished to see that you, probably the most deserving recipient of this barnstar on Wikipedia, hadn't yet received it. If I were to try to enumerate the reasons I'm awarding it, the list would stretch around your girth fully one and a half times, so I'll confine myself to noting that yours is the only user talk page I have watchlisted for its simple entertainment value. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Bongwarrior (talk·contribs) declined that request. But from an outside point of view, the vandalism is too low to warrant protection at this time. Best, PeterSymonds(talk) 08:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Protected for a week. It's very borderline but I can see how some of those edits are problematic. Best, PeterSymonds(talk) 10:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, somehow I doubt the disruptive editor is going away anytime soon, but this should help for a little while.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (2)
Dear Fat Man,
Thank you so very much for reaching out to me at this difficult time. You've always shown yourself to be a kind and generous spirit, and have done so, once again. I will never forget your kindnes to me at this time. With affection, Jeffpw (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FAT mAN, bEAR IS A PERSONAL FRINED FOR BOTH iSAAC AND ME. tHIS WAS NOT TROLLING. tHANK YOU FOR GUARDING MY PAGE SO CLOSELY.pEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE AN EWNOTRMOUS SUPPORT IN THIS DIFFICULT TIME. LOVE, Jeffpw (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. My AGF meter is broken due to all the bozos I've met online over the years (and having engaged in a fair amount of mean and sarcastic trolling myself, I sometimes project my sarcasm onto others). I'll tell Bear I'm sorry and will cease meddling in your affairs. Take it easy, whether mourning alone, or with the love of your friends. Love, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Watching Jeff go through this breaks my heart no end. We all need to watch out for him as best we can, considering the nature of this site and the internet. I know you meant well. Peace. — Becksguy (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to leave Jeff's page alone to the extent possible, but I'm starting to worry ... he doesn't need trolling, and on the internet, it's bound to happen sooner or later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the message seemed really shady and snide, especially from a brand new account; though I am renowned for my relatively high tolerance for nonsense, Jeff's page is simply not the place for it, so I reacted accordingly. And I too am worried about him.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We'd best keep a close eye; I'm afraid something can go wrong, like with that 12-yo acting like a 12-yo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy announcement
Hi Fat Man. I quoted you here. Please check and point out if it was done out of context or inappropriately. Thanks, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 100% okay with the way you quoted me. I'm flattered that you even remembered my comments and am pleased the abolition of the Entertainment desk is being considered once again.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, Sandy. Now I gots to delete it :-D ScarianCall me Pat! 21:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thanked you earlier, but edit-conflicting on such a huge page is soul-destroying. I just love watching characters I type at normal speed turn up ten seconds later, one at a time, at one-second intervals. --Rodhullandemu 21:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Booth, I already told you it was a secret (look up). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? I look up and I see comments going back to my birth year! Isolation booth (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scarian has to tell us what became of the diff at the top of this thread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to the Scarian diff? My response was dorkified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Muzzy
Yeah, I was referring to Muzzy. I've never seen much of it myself, but the site has never ceased to amuse my friends and I. Something about the insanity of the French version is just… awesome. Jes Suis Muzzy! - Bonjour 20:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the best song ever written. If you know where I can find the English, Spanish and Italian versions, please share!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, I'm not too sure 'bout that song; besides checking the 'demos' section of their site and sniffing around YouTube, there's few options for getting the other languages, besides purchasing each DVD set. Jes Suis Muzzy! - Bonjour 22:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heaven sent --> expelled from heaven
Your recent comments on the cla arbcom, are just so. Well done; nice to see somebody have the guts to stand up and say what many feel. Nicer again to see it done which such charm and wit. If you ever want to take a husband, you know where I am. ( Ceoilsláinte 23:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, I'm going to drop the customary Fat Man puckish/trollish silliness and just say that those comments mean a great deal to me because A) I've had a fucking miserable, godawful day in RL, and to know that someone appreciates my good qualities is vaguely heartening and B) You're one of sharpest minds and best writers associated with the project, so your comments carry greater weight. I'll take your marriage proposal under advisement.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also going to take this soapboxing opportunity to point out that what jpgordon did to John Vandenberg[55] was deplorable and absolutely ruinous to an already farcical proceeding. Jayvdb attempts to maintain some semblance of order on those ridiculous ArbCom subpages by blocking the most disruptive and unhelpful of the bunch--something, mind you, that our lazy, timid and impotent ArbCom committee refuses (among many other things) to do. So how does Gordon reward the only one who's actually doing his job? By booting Jay from his position for possessing the cajones to do the needful. Nice. And those truant, irresponsible bozos are busy administering Neosporin (e.g., promptly and unanimously desysopping Can't Sleep Clown Will Eat Me), while ignoring a gaping wound that has been festering for months. Shame on all of you voting for these layabouts.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree about Gordon &, co.. I've started to ramble, and I'm hoping this leads to rumbling. Your last point hits home. I dont think it is the people I voted for that are the problem (I'm off to re-read the election pages..)—more likely it is those elected by the same people embroiled in the controversies which are being left unresolved to fester. The crazy thing about this is that there is so much to do, and it is the creating that is the fun part, yet these people spend all their time fighting. John Vandenberg(chat) 02:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I'm sorry about your FMGADIRL; Fat Man for ArbCom, December 2008!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you as always, SG. Momentarily sidestepping the fact that no one would vote for me, I would never accept an admin or arbitrator role because I freely admit I lack the time/energy/interest to contribute effectively. Unlike these clowns, when I accept an official position (paid or volunteer), I take my responsibilities seriously. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the sentiment that counts :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About that marriage proposal; you might give an answear one way or the other, as my girlfriend is wondering if she is in our out ;) ( Ceoilsláinte 11:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fat Man. We've never really met but I wanted to say be careful of this Coeil character. He's the possessive/manipulative type. Very selfish in relationships and, by reputation, a rubbish lover. I've been considering a community ban discussion against him for this and other reasons. Unrelatedly, I nominate this user, for your consideration. Not sure if this qualifies but figured I'd pass along. --JayHenry (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, poor auld JayHenry. See what happens when community care breaks down hmm? The temptation is to block him, for all our sakes, but maybe the kind thing is to just have him put down, so he can, ah, be at rest and pease, at last for all our sakes. Re: "rubbish lover"; I am aware of the recent brief you tube footage, but eh, it was cold, and em, just after the womens volley ball word champions finals, and <oh crikey>. Ceoil 21:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Student organizations in North America (fraternities and sororities)
I changed back the article title. In the first place, you are factually incorrect, there are college fraternities and sororities in other countries, notably the Philippines and Puerto Rico. There are also all kinds of fraternities and sororities that exist for adults, both in the United States and elsewhere, such as Freemasonry. There has been ongoing discussions on
to try to have some order out of the different kinds of organizations, European student corporations, sororities, non-fraternity student societies, and to do so in a non-Ameri-centric manner, and to accomodate the wide range of organizations.
If you can come up with a better and consistent categorization scheme that takes all variables into account, please do so. But please do not half-revert an article here and there.P22575R15 (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you were trying to do here and appreciate your point of view, but there doesn't appear to be shred of anything resembling consensus for these moves. You have needlessly complicated a large number of article titles
All of your moves now need to be undone, and I now need to bother an administrator to clean up the mess you have made. Some days it's no fun being the Fat Man Who Never Came Back.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
In the first place, which page would you like me to respond on? You repsond on MY talk page and delete my initial comment on your page saying it should be article discussion. You're not consistent.
Second, you may wish to consider the tone of your comments and postings: "this is truly horribly written" "clean up the mess you have made" You might want to consider reading Wikipedia:Assume good faith, or Wikipedia:Polite.
Third, you seem to have no knowledge of the subject you are editing, so you might wish to slow down on all your revert edits.
Forth, simplicity in finding an article is not the only criteria for finding an article. You can list tomatoes on the vegetable page, but it doesn't belong there. If you want to have a redirect from a commonly wrong term to the accurate term, that would be consistent with wikipedia policy on redirects.P22575R15 (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as for consensus, there certainly WAS consensus that the previous scheme was wrong. You might wish to read the links I provided initially. If you revert edit back to that scheme, you are instituting a scheme that is, by consensus, wrong. Please co9nsider the implications of what you are doing.P22575R15 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comment I moved from my talk page (not deleted) was about the article. The comment I left on your talk page was about your behavior (moving articles without consensus).
I have no doubt that you have more knowledge about fraternal organizations and sundry other topics than me. This self-declared expertise does not absolve you of the responsibility of achieving consensus with other editors before you making major article moves willy-nilly. All I have done is convinced an administrator to undo the many inappropriate page moves you have made and started a discussion where experts such as yourself can weigh in and come to agreement on what the article title should be. I did not assume any bad faith on your part--only very bad judgment. If decide to engage in page-move warring rather than than participating in the discussion I've started, no one will take you seriously.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
kudos
greeeaaattt user name!MY♥INchile 02:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm rather pleased with my user name as well. It's been 2+ years since I created an account, and I think it's every bit as funny as it was back then. I'm an absolute delight.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fraternity
I've reported you to the Administrator's notebook for your 3 revert rule violation and unwillingness to employ wikipedia policy on disambiguation. They can address the problem any way they wish.129.133.124.199 (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I love you too. I hope, despite our little tussle, that you'll continue to weigh in on Talk:Fraternity (I think we have roughly the same vision for the future of the article), but without the cut-and-pastiness.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you were very patient last night, even if was past your bedtime :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you think so, but I think I need a wikibreak. It seems like all I'm doing lately is biting the heads off newbies and berating truant arbitrators. The Fat Man needs to chill out.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naming Contest
I need an animal pet; everyone else has one.[56] I was thinking of Manga Nanny, in honor of a conversation on Yomangani's talk page, but only about four of us would get it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's waaaaaay past my bedtime, my little capybara. Give me a few days; I will think hard to devise merrily monikered bestial sockpuppets for you, but can make no promises as to their entertainment value.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Capybara ???? We eat those back home, unless we turn them into hats! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) The Fat Man, a noted South American tourist and zoologist, knows what capybaras are. You should be grateful he didn't call you his little nutria. In all seriousness, one of the very first times I encountered you was in relation to cleanup of the Capybara page, so I've always associated you (fondly) with that animal. That's why my first instinct was to name your hypothetical sockpuppet after a Rodent of Unusual Size. But I'll try to come up with better ideas once I am rested; just don't hold me to that promise!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(after another edit conflict--I also type slowly, with my sausage-like fingers) If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, I most certainly have not forgotten your peerless peer review about my favorite topic; along with that collage Outriggr made me on my birthday, that was the nicest, most unexpected thing anyone has ever done for me onwiki. But the Fat Man moves slowly, thinks slowly, talks slowly and acts slowly. You can expect to see a GA-level (I know GAs aren't your thing, but that's the best I can commit to) page all about wanking by the time I turn fifty.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the time you turn 50, the only topic of current interest remaining on Wiki will be a still-open ArbCom case :-) Are you serious about liking the food in Buenos Aires? When I think of Buenos Aires, I feel ... hungry ... and good-food deprived. Visions of soggy gnocchis on the 29th of every month come to mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With this, I did exactly the same thing a few minutes before, on the same page! Acalamari 01:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it before as well, thankfully in a place no one noticed. That damn rollback button is positioned badly, and it's too easy to hit it by mistake. Someone should fix that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would like your help. I was expecting this... but nevertheless, its always worth it to try. :-) (Masculinity (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
How can i create a 'rough' page and put it up for discussion? (Masculinity (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I'm checking with others if we can literally move the article from the mainspace of the encyclopedia, to your more personal userspace, where you can work on it (with others, if you like) until it is ready to be moved back into the main article area of Wikipedia.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestions... They're very relevant and specific. I'll do the needful, and you can help me format the footnotes.(Masculinity (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Universal Cereal Bus
How funny is my username? Can you put it on your list please? Thanks, UniversalCerealBus♫♪ 18:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
for keeping an eye out. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FU
FU stands for follow up, obviously :-). Just checking in, did your Macaca issue get solved appropriately? Do you still need assistance or can I check this off my talkpage? Keeperǀ76 19:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for this edit. I wasn't purposefully removing sourced information. I must have overlooked the source. Thanks for correcting it. Ward3001 (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Reference Desk reply!
Thanks for you great, stress-relieving reply to my reference desk question. (I've posted my follow-up there, but as far as answers go, I should be all set.) -- (a very random IP) 64.0.112.2 (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will not dignify this ill-advised and hostile gesture with a response. Shadrach and Abednego must be spinning in their graves.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alliance
For some weeks I have attempted a divide and conqure strategy with Jayhenry and Whiskeydog, but its not going great, frankly. I had thought they would tear each other apart to be third, but it seems they are more thirsty than that. I suppose I could get blocked for approcahing an editor with suggestions of blackmail and torture, but here I am, FatMan. I need muscle, friend, and I need it fast, how many can you put together? The pesants are revolting. Ceoilsláinte 05:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the Fat Man's New Year's resolutions was to eschew entangling alliances. Moreover, all talk page envoys are hereby advised that Fat Man will no longer even entertain requests for an audience with His Rotundity before tithes and oblations consisting of one or both of the following are laid humbly before his feet:
Meatpuppetry. In case you didn't notice, times are tough, even for An fear ramhar nár tháinig riamh ar ais (you will find my court translators to be second to none). You see, my cross-namespace redirects are under siege from a frothing horde of Philistines. Find me eleven strong men to register their opposition to this nascent miscarriage of justice, and I, in turn, shall throw the considerable weight of my army behind your piddling cause.
Actual meat. I am especially fond of cured pork products, the more extravagant the better. Send some pata negra my way, and we'll talk turkey.
The Fat Man has forgotten what he resolved that night. My stenographer at the New Year's party gives it as follows:
Fat Man: "Very good, but I resolve to chew on entangling alliances. I say 'chew on' because, of course, each of my utterances should contain a play on words about food. I mean that I will consider becoming involved—more involved than ever—in entangling alliances. Because 'entangling' here may be taken as an adjective or a verb—and please excuse any blunders in my amateur grammatical analysis—I will explicitly state now that I mean it in the active sense: in 2008, especially in the latter half, I will entangle alliances".
My point? Ceoil is waiting. Whiskeydog (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your stenographer, however p(h)unny, is a jackanapes and a mendacious varlet! Anyone who was really with me on New Years Eve knows that by 9:30 I was passed out behind the sofa, clinging to an empty bottle of Chartreuse. And I'm still waiting for my Iberian ham. Anyway, while you are busy issuing talk page fabrications, Ceoil is busy gathering the requested puppetmeat. I ordered eleven supporters, and Mr. Ceoil has already delivered five (one of whom happens to be my real-life brother; I have no idea where you dug him up). Why can't you be more like cousin Ceoil? There's a man who gets things done.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about the truth or falsity of the first part of your username, referring to your alleged obesity, but as for the latter part, it's clearly false: you keep coming back. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
September 2008
Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please do not make such edits without asking as that edit was completely out of lineβcommand 19:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think TFM was just spreading a little love. Kablammo (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This'd be the diff in question; Beta must have accidentally put the editor name in the page field. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is the actual offending diff. But let's not split hairs; anyway you slice it, I'm a bad wittle boy.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"wittle"? Yeah, right. Kablammo (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dont template the regulars; dont edit without tdrinking, be civil and human, maybe even learn to take a joke. Any plenty more if I could give a damn. Ceoilsláinte 22:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The flower critter is a free image. Kablammo (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the facts are dust. Its not like the editor in question looks at the broken bones in his rear view mirror. Ceoilsláinte 22:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what the hell is going on here, but since Wiki's Finest Minds are on the job, I'm not going to worry about it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Sandy at all; it just dry humour. We are trying to cheer up TFM in what -he was templated by BC afterall- must be a very difficult period in his life. Its not clear yet that TFM will be able to pull himself together, put on his size 58 jacket, dusts him self off, raise his chin in defiance against one who takes templating so serious, and carefully judges his actions as BC does.
God speed FM, if this incident does not allow drink, regret, bed-sits and anti-depressants to get you first. Ceoilsláinte 23:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Size 58 jacket"????? Humph! You missed an opportunity for yet another fat joke when you wrote "raise his chin in defiance." You should have said "his many chins" or something along those lines.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spoil sport. I was LMAO until I hit the part where you referred to TFM as FM. No, big difference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying there are TWO fat men (TFM vs FM)? As if he would engage a socket puppet (and be stupid enough to be causgt).[57]. Jesus, that would shake my foundations. Ceoilsláinte 23:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would never want my foundations shaken. Do men have foundations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, men are all bastards (and I would know, as an unreconstruced bastard; I wish!). By the way, sorry for being slow about the FM pun; we content people are have been had are watching for some time now but is no understand and now slow ;) Ceoilsláinte 23:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
I have known men who aren't bastards; I'm sure there are several. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Maybe I should stop reading self help and self improvement programmes on FOX. Ceoilsláinte 23:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fat Man's got a nice pad here, but he really should clean up these hambones and plonk bottles, and lay in a stock of proper Scotch. Kablammo (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I was you, I'd go back and add a mobile phone number or a picture of your mother to the first post to BC, and ask that the whole thing is oversighted, for 'security'. Then archive this thread with a minor edit summary (maybe 'clearing', or something like that), and keep your head down for a few days (em dashes are easy to fix) before trolling again. Would make chances of becoming an Arbitrator in december much easier and likelier: you can't fool all of the people all of the time, but I reckon you can fool 50.01% of them most of the time. Most of them only care about categories, lists, trivia, video games, boobs, roads and exposing gay friends anyway. Go for it, we'll say nothing. Ceoilsláinte 15:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was a brilliant audition, Ceoil. Thanks for the free advice; if the TFM is going to stand up to the forces of wiki-evil, he cannot afford to be above indulging in a bit of Machiavellian wickedness. Given that my previous campaign manager appears to be indisposed, perhaps I can offer you a position as my chief strategist. Take a day or two to think about it.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I accept; and now that you are a shoo in for arb, I can speak freely, and it will all be taken care of by our friends with the magic buttons. Frankly: my problem is jay henry. I suppose it would be easy to dissapear him, but 'people' would likely notice (godnamn people, if they didn't pay taxes, and I had my way, there would be no people). I want him taken out, today, but I will need control of his account for 3 or 4 days after so I can edit and act erraticaly and then climax with a big tearful "screw ye guys" 4000 word statement on his user page; complete with a black background, CAPS, and links to poems, and to a few Joy Division youtube vids, just to be sure they know he was weird. I can do it, so people will believe; trust me once the noise on WP:ANI dies out and the police investigation ends it'll be business as usual; with you as arb, and me as queen. He is not the only one I need rid of though, but he is the most cleaver, the most scheming, the most ambishious, and the most able of them all. And the my immediate priority, so y'know, dont dissapoint. [Note to oversighters; delete this, pls]. Ceoilsláinte 15:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is it with you two squabbling children? But you've upheld your end of the bargain (above) by orchestrating meatpuppets to save my cross namespace redirect; in return, the least I can do is get rid of one of our better mainspace contributors once and for all.
I've never plotted another user's Wikicide before. This is new territory for me. It will have to be orchestrated carefully and tastefully. Perhaps this would be a suitably shocking and melodramatic YouTube link (viewer advisory: if you don't wish to spend the rest of your afternoon applying guyliner and slashing your wrists, I probably wouldn't click on that link) for his tearful goodbye. In all seriousness, that was a pretty good movie, and that scene makes me doubly unhappy after the whole Dvd Fstr Wllce thing.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let put our cards on the table. I have about six socks that have a few ga's and fa's under their belt, I have a bunch of others that do DYKs, a few that specialise on talk:template (you never know), and although I don't have a check user account, I can msg and elecrute Alsion and Lar at will. You? Ceoilsláinte 17:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created a stub and once tattled on a vandal, but that was like a year and a half ago. You'd better not message Lar. He's in enough trouble as it stands, for his abusive back-channel shennanigans. And Alison? Grossly uncooperative, if you ask me. Here, she defies my wishes with a casual insolence that curdles my blood (perhaps you'd have better luck taming that shrew that I, b/c you can woo her in Celt).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Гммм, говоришь по русски, толстуха? Если да, мы можем замышлять в секрете против Койлслейнта. I warn you: I've heard on good authority that Ceoil is a Janus, that he's swift to kick his partners out of bed for eating crackers, as it were. I warn you because you don't seem like the sort to resist some cheese, sausage, and crackers, but it's precisely the inadequacy of the marrow of that trio that makes Ceoil so quick to kick out anyone who opts for the former or latter (he can barely spell, let alone parse complex sentences, so he won't know what any of that means). --JayHenry (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't govorit po ruskiy (though I can slur through a stirring rendition Очи чёрные, if adequately lubricated), so save the sidelong Cyrillic for Condoleeza Rice. I hear she is a renowned Sovietologist with mad linguistic skillz. And assure Ceoil (after you apologize to him for that reprehensible small penis joke) that I won't be bringing any crackers into my boudoir, though I might make an exception for, say, Deborah Norville.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not Janus; I'm Lucius Vorenus. Rather than drag this out maybe you should fly to Cork and we'll settle this with fisty cups. Ceoilsláinte 03:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
White people
I would like to point out that editors on the white people article keep undoing your edit to remove the gallery and won't allow example photos to be added. I think the gallery is pointless as it will just grow huge as people loads of people who are claimed to be white. There should be simply example photos where relevent throughout the article. Usergreatpower (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry; I always win edit wars. Few surpass my own "great power" on Wikipedia. Seriously, though, individual images are the way to go, but "example" images (images of any old white guy or white broad) are inherently contentious and problematic. I would instead advocate historical ethnological or political images that seem to refer to white people as a whole. Get back to Talk:White people and discuss it there.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page protected
Your page has been protected from moving by all non-admin users. FYI. Don't try to move your user page and user talk pages. I know you were planning on it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for watching over my talk page during my retirement, Moni. I find that the page move vandalism was a valid criticism of my recent edits and didn't seem to accuse me of pedophilia, bestiality or being smacked by Grawp's massive cock. Would you mind unprotecting after a few days? I was never down with WP:DENY and am always willing to entertain vandals' insults, provided that they entertain me.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's just protected from moving. Do you consider having your page moved to User:Corpulent male who left in a hissyfit and writes in turgid prose a valid criticism? Think about all the vandals who actually want to leave brilliant "U r a fag" statements on your talk page. They wouldn't be able to find it. Then what would you have to entertain you? Plus, the protection was only for 48 hours. --Moni3 (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Corpulent male? Turgid prose? I love it! If only Grawp were that insightful. "U r a fag" is slightly less amusing but hard to argue with if you've ever seen my mincing walk and fabulous accessories. My admirers and I can get by for 48 hours, I suppose, as long as you don't make us sit through the sequel.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage, just watch I 'spose. See if it comes up to speed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Watch it I will. I have some of the world's finest cheese shops within walking distance of my abode. If it would help, I could get some nice pictures of some non-infested Pecorino Sardo (although I'm sure Commons already has some adequate photos)--we could do a before-and-after thing. And I would kill for a macro close-up shot of those wriggling maggots. I don't want to get in the way now, but when the time comes, I'd be happy to help with copyediting/FAC grilling.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving
Hey there. It's time to archive your user talk page. :-) It's quite large, which causes problems for people with dial-up connections, people with old browsers, people editing from phones, etc. If people aren't able to leave messages for you, it's a bad scene as it makes collaboration and communication much harder. Thanks in advance! --MZMcBride (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...so I made the pasta with mustard greensas promised, and I guess I had this bottle of Kilikanoon shiraz lying around.... reasonably good stuff and a very good match for the bitter greens.... perhaps too good a match. I think I ate a pound of pasta (lots of olive oil, crushed pepper and parmigiano reggiano) and most of the bottle of wine. I'm kinda wasted.... Now I'm asking inane questions on the Reference Desk. God help us.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AN/I clowns
Check my contribution history before telling me I didn't help build this encyclopedia, please.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't internalize my impersonal attacks. I have no idea who you are, nor how you're involved with Noroton; I have no reason to doubt the quality and quantity of your contributions. It's the authoritarian, dissent-quashing, punitive culture of AN/I as a whole to which I object; and I'm genuinely sad at the way energetic, intelligent contributors/writers like N. are treated by your lot. That some of the ruler-wielding schoolmarms couldn't write an article to save their lives is hardly a controversial or debatable proposition.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. You have new messages at Mike R's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Fell out of bed
That was brilliant :) Daniel (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not helpful
I understand the sense of humor and the point behind your latest post to the SV-L arb case, but it was really unhelpful. Thatcher 23:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but at the time John did not have mad checkuser skillz. I'm the final boss checkuser, haven't you heard? I know where all the bodies are buried. Thatcher 23:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving assistance
Hiya, your talkpage is currently pushing 350K, and some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K. Is it alright if I set up an archivebot for you? That'll automatically archive any threads that have been inactive for a certain amount of time (30 days?) and then you won't have to worry about it anymore? --Elonka 23:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you that people with slow connections/special browsers aren't missing much by not being able to view my page. Also, you're late to the party. We went over this last week.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few obsercations
Your primary Modus Operandi seems to be social networking; giving obscure answers to questions posed about your username, answered on various subpages. You operate numerous sock puppets that vary on a theme. Your contributions of adding a DAB link could be done by Bots. If I had to describe you it'd have to be like a parasite; consuming Wikipedia server space adding to costs. Maybe now you should never come back for real after requesting speedy deletions for the whole lot. --The Punish3r (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the obsercations, sweetie.. I never pretended to be anything more or less than a parasite.. I think you're just jealous because I'm gonna get all my Wikipedia Review meatpuppets to get me elected to the Arbitration Committee and not you.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some reliable sources had something to say about His Fat Man's contributions to Wiki:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-9907582-36.html "Whoever wrote the fake Ima Hogg bio might want to think about pursuing a career in screenwriting. It sounds more amusing than any of the movies I've seen recently..."
But seriously, TFM: in recent days, editors have been blocked for joshing with each other on their own talk pages, editors have been misinterpreted because their writing style includes exclamation marks, editors who have inquired about other editors' COI have been blocked, and editors inquiring about the other editors inquiring about COI issues have RFCs initiated. We'll need your talents around come April (assuming we still have some FA writers left to prepare an article :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But what have I done lately, Sandy, but trolled and sneered at others? I need to rethink my life. The "encyclopedia" part of this website won't miss we chat-a-lots like me (that's an Irpen-coined term of derision) when we are banned, but this purge of our best writers is kinda depressing. And now I'm being completely serious.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Your Corpulence, when the writers get down and depressed and blocked, they know where to come for good cheer. I'm sure Moni3 will write a few good FAs in your honor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only if he stays around and defends the honor of whores and battles tyrannical windmills. I'm the whore, by the way. I've slept my way to FAs. --Moni3 (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yummy cloves, tooThat'll give anyone a headache Ah, well, no one told me about that job perk. I hope my humble gifs of ham and cheap wine will make up for the guilt trips I've laid on TFM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing says I love you like a $4 American sparkler (I just hope User:Agne27 doesn't see it!). Thanks for the cloves too; I'm a Djarum man (when I'm not smoking Virginia Slims). Ever happy to be play muse (or overweight cheerleader) to greater editors than I, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gracious sakes alive. Fat Man, I love you because you make me laugh my ass off. I love you for your moobs, and I love you because you confound the hell out of an odd conversation. Despite your considerable girth, your touch is deft and graceful as satire should be, not delivered with a sledgehammer. I appreciate that you get involved in conversations that would leave tiny parts of my brain matter on the wall beside me from the many explosions that would inevitably ensue from reading some of these astonishing conversations. Someone has to do it, just like someone has to write about Anita Bryant. When I'm done with that article, I'll weep like a tiny child in the comfort of your pudding-like arms. --Moni3 (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're a doll, Moni3. In all seriousness I think the, um, Punish3r makes (that's a totally rad username, btw; I feel chastened merely by viewing those characters) a valid point: the community could use a few more Moni3s and a smidgen less TFMWNCBs. Cheap laughs are easy, but writing is hard; that's why I don't do it (except when SandyGeorgia lays guilt trips on me). But it is satisfying enough to be the village idiot, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TFM! I hope you won't miss the edit summary[61] in which I poetically compare you to Senator Larry Craig. Sorry about the flattery. (And hey now—my talk page is red and protected—by things that can eat even you. No crazy ideas!) Whiskeydog (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Larry Craig references, however nauseating, are always welcome here. "Some clickity clackin'? It's the Fat Man a-tappin'"... that's classic lulz, though very gross, the more I think about it; Senator Craig's hoofin' shenanigans permanently sullied the innocence of the public restroom experience for me; things will never be the same.
The Fat Man, Crossdressing-Ceoil, and SandyGeorgia discuss Arbcom and Featured Soups.
The only page "protection" that TFM respects is full protection--not vague threats. If your reptilian benefactor gets any ideas, I have already drafted some language for transclusion on WP:UNPROTECT. Do not underestimate the number, variety or prominence of administrators the TFM's back pocket has accumulated to do his bidding. This will all be moot when I am promoted to Arbitrator. I am looking forward to wheel-warring, imperceptible application of selective oversight to hide embarrassing edits by me and my friends, checkuser fishing expedition and general creepiness. The Wikipedia Review will have a whole subforum documenting my abuses. I can't wait until next year.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a high-water mark for this thread, I can only hope you saw the sketch "Jon Hamm's John Ham" on Saturday Night Live this weekend. Featuring a spam-type product rolled onto a toilet paper holder in a bathroom stall, it answered the question, "I have only so much time at lunch... how can I eat and go to the bathroom?" I wish we had one of those 18th-century British satirists to engrave the mental picture forming here... the indulgent Fat Man sitting in a stall with no door, enjoying ham/spam and public bathroom sex. It's the Fat Man made, in his glory, whole! <can't bring myself to sign here, you'll understand> 03:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I nearly spit out my $20 Barbera. You put the OL back in LOL, my friend. Yeah, where is James Gillray when you need him? That bloke seems to have the appropriate sense of grostesquery/hilarity/just-plain-grossness for the job.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad. Yes, Mr. Know-It-All, that is exactly what I be thinking of. Only Yomangan and several others would know this. Which one of them are you? I thought I was the only multiple personality? Cough it up, boy. Whiskeydog (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Illustrations
In what way is this meant to be productive? --bainer (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, like, you know how when you're watching a basketball game on the telly and the Lakers logo is one side of the scoreboard and the Celtics logo on the other? That's what I was going for. I can only assume you reverted me because my wiki-formatting stinks. I'm looking forward to working with you when I join the ArbCom in January.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, TheFatManSucks would be a poor effort indeed. I happen to believe Mr. Gomez was paying tribute to my magnificence when selecting his sockpuppet name. If he ever gets unbanned, he's welcome here anytime.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'd already expressed your admiration of the name on your user page; the bad news I was delivering wasn't the user name itself, but the fact that it was a dastardly sockpuppet. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:TFMWNCB age 4.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mike R (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe I didn't tell my mother exactly how I'd be using the picture. She's a very religious woman, and I don't want her seeing all the penis talk and drunken debauchery on my talk page. Can I really be blamed?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fat Man, send an email to permissions@wikipedia.org with the following statement: I own the copyright to the images found attached in this email. I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify these documents under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Make sure you attach the image to the email, sign your name. Change the Summary info at Image:TFMWNCB_age_4.jpg to state the date (or decade, or whatever) and say who took the image. You'll get an email with an OTRS number within a few days. Put that number on the permissions line. An admin who can see the email will fill in another template that verifies that. Once you have sent the email, notify the deletion discussion about your actions. --Moni3 (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He DOESN'T own the copyright to that image. His mom does! That's the whole problem! He needs to get a signed statement from Mrs. Fat Man releasing copyright, or bye-bye arbcom! Mike R (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You pipe down. I only listen to admins. I'll have you blocked for your continued wikistalking and incivility. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if his mother is no longer living? It sounds as if you are using this image deletion as leverage in his participation at an arbcom. I am proudly ignorant of these issues and wish to remain so, but this does sound extreme in image licensing of a family photo. --Moni3 (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moni3, I'm emailing my mother now, and when she responds, I'll paste her reply (minus the updates about our cat and her arthritis) into the email to OTRS as well as the other stuff. Thanks for your help.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Fat Man, digital signing is fine. I have used digital signing from copyright holders in the two dozen or so images I've gotten from subjects, organizations, photographers, and the New York Public Library. Let me know about the cat, arthritis, and the cat's arthritis --Moni3 (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of the OTRS permissions team, I'm speedy closing this PUI for WP:POINTyness. howcheng {chat} 17:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About those comments of yours ...
Yeah, Fluffy's wearing a bow tie. You got a problem with that?All forgiven! Fluffy primps, prepping to protest some pointless pugnacity -- always smart to redirect his energies elsewhere! -- Noroton (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My associate, Fluffy, doesn't say much, but he indicates to me that while he's grateful for your support here, calling the subject "crappy" disconcerted him somewhat. He was also a little uncomfortable when you recently compared denizens of AN/I to clowns, as he feels the association may not be all that complimentary as regards his lifestyle choice. Between you and me, I wouldn't get Fluffy irritated. I also want to warn you that I may finally create Hotel toilet paper folding, a subject I've long had in my sights. When that goes up for AfD, and you call it "crappy", too, you'll have the hospitality industry just as furious at you as the bow tie industry is. (Did I mention Fluffy is a hotelier?) And another thing: You didn't respond to my gracious email thanking you for your comment on my talk page. I haven't mentioned it to Fluffy.
Sorry about that, Noroton. I suppose that my suggesting your late article (which I adored, I hope you know) was the best of a "crappy" lot was a bit snarky. I really enjoy your writing and believe it will be restored after DRV. Ryulong's smug little closing remarks were pugnacious and pointless.[63] And sorry about not writing you back; par for the course for yours truly; I regularly neglect my friends, families, colleagues, enemies and acquaintances, though I cherish them all. Thanks for the creepy clown. He brightens up my talk page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, we were just having a spot of fun. Between you and me, I was half-way hoping that humorless and meddlesome nitwit Will Beback would block me. I already have a block from "Mike Rosoft" on the books. Add "Will Beback" to the mix along with his cousin "Ben Dover" (yet to pass RfA), and I will have incurred the wrath-trifecta of Admins with lame and unfunny user names. And I'm really into funny user names.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good idea... Humor works, but I have yet to see it do so in WP when it is related to blocks or admin actions. Not a good idea... ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 04:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was awaiting your sage wikiadvice like an eager, vacuous sponge. Talking to you, Will Beback and David Gerard and your robofriends, I get the distinct impression that the humans are dead. I'll just confirm that they're dead. Anyway, I think I just saw Grawp smacking your guru's page with his massive cock. You'd best run along.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do see that you have an obsession with Grawp's genitalia, and in that context I should know better than feed it≈ jossi ≈(talk) 05:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to anti-protect my page so that anyone with the exception of tiresome administrators can edit it?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could put in a "Please don't warn me, just block me if I break any rules" note at the top, if you're serious.
Look. The edit to the civility policy was either a POINT violation, or you're sticking a stick into a beehive for fun in the middle of a legitimate serious incident, and that's disruption. Either way, it was not a particularly constructive contribution. You had a legitimate point - there was no need to escalate the situation further to make it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For being awesome
The Barnstar of High Culture
Clicked on your user page recently (it was the clown with the bow tie that led me here). Now that I'm here I must say that you hands-down represent the highest cultured personality I've so far observed on a wikipedia. Witty, smart, and wise. For anyone to condescend to you can only be see as either a sign of utter madness or reprehensible bad taste. Firefly322 (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? You followin' me? Know what Fluffy do to flies what follows him? Just stay still fer a moment ... -- Fluffy
Fluffy, you work for Richard Bachman? If not, he might be a good guy to know in your line of work. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
accounts etc
Oh I thought there were some accounts you made to make jokes etc which were blocked. Sorry if I was mistaken:( I know you'd never be an evil or deceptive sock muppet. StickyParkin 13:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom questions
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
Why do you think users should vote for you?
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
November 2008
Please do not create malicious redirects. They are disruptive and are considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ηoian‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did this jackanapes just Twinkle me? At least he didn't Huggle me. I'm hard at work on my candidate questions, so please stop a-noian me.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While none are apparent in your recent contributions, this does bring to mind the time I observed you make a redirect called "_____". I won't let you sweep that under the carpet during the upcoming election. Respectfully, –Outriggr§ 04:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
______ was a great Pryor routine. If you want malicious redirects, check out the author of gaycation and assgrabbery. And Outriggr, you've got some nerve showing up here empty-handed. Isn't there something you were supposed to do for me (clears throat needily)? I haven't been spending hours scoping material on Commons for nothing.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if you haven't made any conceptual breakthroughs, I will settle for an enormous, garish .gif file with huge block letters blinking on some fat guy. Remember, friend, this is a privilege--don't think I won't bring my commissions elsewhere!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to explain the finer qualities of ______ to me; I was only hoping that someone would raise a fuss (perhaps block you) without understanding "the context" and thereby make themselves look bad and you good, to help with your election. I haven't had any conceptual breakthroughs, no... but if there's one thing I appreciate, it's appreciation, and since you have amply noted that you liked the birthday pic (which was swell of you), it would make sense for me to direct more of my wasted 'creativity' in your direction, and do less of the talk-page poetry that generally gets archived without a word... –Outriggr§ 02:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. After reading Arbitrators Gone Wild, perhaps I should be hard at work on that banner, as to increase my chances of having the requisite "friend in a high place". If making you that banner would get me in on ground zero with one "tranche" of the ol' (& fat) boys club, it's a start, and the least I could do. I hope you'll at least be able to recuse yourself from cases where appropriate without having to "think real hard". (And you want to be a part of that mess? I don't believe your pretensions to laziness.) P.S. I feel safer with the discussion above censored, if you don't mind. –Outriggr§ 08:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, "Arbitrators Gone Wild." Now there's a video that I assure you would turn most stomachs. First of all, thank you for making 5 of the 400,000 kilobytes on my talk page family-friendly. I was actually thinking of you Saturday morning as I brilliantly and articulately answered Lar's questions (I shamaelessly tacked that last part onto my answer to question 9 in a deliberate effort to pander to the disillusioned likes of Whiskeydog). Yes, of course I will pull unscrupulous favors for you the moment I'm elected. Whatever you need. Anyone's bothering you, I'll send one my clerks over to redirect their user page to clown; it's an little trick Fred Bauder taught me--clowns are less massive but more terrifying than Grawp's enormous, page-moving member, I'm told. I'll also make sure you're invited to all the swell parties, IRC channels and Skypecasts. I'm glad you don't believe my pretnensions to laziness; were the voters to discover me in RL, lounging about my apartment for hours on end in odalisque position, munching on gribenes and neglecting wikimatters during a Keeping Up with the Kardashians marathon, they might find my scorching condemnations of the Committee's indolence hypocritical, to say the least. I had written a very funny line in this spot, but it's kind of gross and mean, so I have redacted it. We Arbitrators have to show a bit of restraint and discretion, you know. Now get to work on that banner.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I do envy your lifestyle. You can replace the "Wild" link with essentially anything, mind you; which I write only to bring me to another point: I assume I will remain able to criticize the committee with you on it, at the same time as you fatten my goats. It's a lot to ask for a banner, don't you think?
Well, I'm sorry that's all Whiskeydog was to you. Maybe Whiskeydog felt stereotyped and that's why he left the project. Or maybe Whiskeydog was relieved that no one had to that point check-usered him and then subjected him to some kangaroo court where he was accused of breaking that murky and rather contradictory rule here that says "our project is fundamentally anonymous except that any one single human being must edit the site in a way which ensures that all his/her edits can be correlated to that individual consciousness, even though we have no idea who, what, or where it is". Now, Whiskeydog may not have hung out with the likes of Katherine d'Berg (other than one time when they met at the Society for Suppression of Vice's Apple-Bobbing Fundraiser [Whiskeydog blushed and went prostrate when he admitted to me that he had been turned on by, really, every aspect of it---he described in quite vivid detail the rhythmic motions, the ladies squinting as they returned to air, water dripping from their faces---and I said, please, save it for Dogriggr]), but there are some pretty hard-nosed sleuths around.
All this drek for an animated GIF [I am in a small minority that insists on jiff, thank you] that might begin "Why did The Fat Man cross the road?" and then fail to deliver an alternate joke-ending that is purposely even less funny and more Arb-Serious than the usual
joke-ending? I don't know, man. Animated GIFs are so passe', and I'd have to learn how to make one. Dated 10:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Please, please archive your talk
This user supports The Fat Man Who Never Came Back for arb, and has it on good authority that he is quite the handsome fella IRL. Either way is fine, his charm and intellgence was never doubted and we need 20 more of him. He is the type of person I would go for a pint of black with IRL, and I cant say that about most on this website. He has big balls, and I hope he realised the importantce of the role he plays on WP, and that the content people here are hugely protective of the guns he holds
– Gurch 06:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please do not make such edits without asking as that edit was completely out of line βcommand 19:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Italienischer_Maler_des_17._Jahrhunderts_001.jpg){kind=link}
Please do not create malicious redirects. They are disruptive and are considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
