![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello RcB:
It's on display at Fort Nelson, Portsmouth. It's listed as on loan from pounds marine shipping Ltd. I'm not sure if the company still exists but they own/owned a naval scrapyard at the top end of Portsea Island. It was built in 1893 and was built by the elswick ordnance company. It's aparently a Mk III. I would assume it was fitted when the ship was reactivated. About the only reasonable route I can see for it ending up where it is would be if it was stripped out before the ship transfered to canada but I dont know if the scrapyard existed at that point.
© Geni 20:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Did you ever hear back from fort nelson?© Geni 23:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- - -
Hi there, I'm trying to identify the model of gun in Geni's photo at Fort Nelson. If it was a"Mk III" QF built as new by Elswick in 1893, it would be a 40-calibres (20 feet long internally) QF gun weighing 6.6 tons. Its cartridge was a brass case. But so far as I know, HMS Calypso had the much lighter and shorter (26 calibres) 5-ton BL gun (silk bag cartridge) of 1881-1883, and I doubt it would have been able to carry the QF 40-calibres gun. The gun looks too short for the long 40-calibres QF model, but difficult to judge end-on. A view of the breech would allow definite identification. I'm wondering whether this was one of the early 1880s BL Mk III 26-calibre guns which were later converted to QF in about 1893 by Elswick ? I.e. is this a QFC 6-inch gun ? But it lacks the bell muzzle typical of the 26-calibre BL 6-inch guns. Do you have any more information about this ? Gunlist for Calypso ? thanks. Rod. Rcbutcher ( talk) 22:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I received this e-mail in response to my enquiry:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your enquiry and apologies for the delay. This gun carries the serial number 295 and if the surviving Gun Logs belonging to Explosion! The Museum of Naval Firepower at Priddy's Hard, Gosport but currently on deposit at the Hampshire County Record Office, Winchester, are consulted it can be seen that it was removed from Calypso and returned to store in Plymouth on the 10th August 1901 and appears to have ended up in Devonport on 23rd January 1902. Sadly there are no other entries regarding its earlier (or later) life. If, as you say, she had four such guns on board later, these would obviously carry other numbers and probably recorded in those Gun Logs. At the time this information did not form part of my brief.
I am not entirely certain of the exact way this gun came to be on loan to us since it was before my time. Knowing John Pounds and his organisation as I do he would have phoned us up to let us know that he had acquired it and would we like it as a loan item.
I hope this helps.
Yours faithfully,
[name]
Curator of Artillery
Royal Armouries
I do not understand the shape of the gunhouse, but perhaps the armament changed. I have a 1963 article from Mariners Mirror which has a silhouette of other ships of the Comus class which at least suggest this shape of gunhouse.
Regards, Kablammo ( talk) 23:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. That picture is very helpful. It resembles the 6" housing of Calliope (right). It is harder to correlate it to the sponsoned gun on Calypso in Newfoundland, but it could be the same type of housing, but covered at the top by the shed built atop the gunwale bulwark. The museum piece was removed before the ship went to Newfoundland (I think two of the four were removed), so the gun and housing shown wharfside in the third image on the right would be a different rifle, but perhaps one of the remaining 6". Regards, Kablammo ( talk) 12:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm not crazy. I was like...that doesn't look like Michael Phelps...does it? But no one seems to notice until you. I'm right, right? -- mboverload @ 02:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I responded to your helpful critique. Cla68 ( talk) 05:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting that. You caught it seconds after I realized the mistake and right before I went back to make the correction RobAtSGH ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC).
I only come here out of good intentions. I'm passing along a sentiment I really think you should be privy to. We all got together, like...all of Wikipedia (they voted me the spokesmodel)... and we decided that the sum total of your existence can be explained in four words: "leg banging granny raider". Please use this information wisely. For self-flagellation and improvement.
If you would like to reply, see this source. -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
During the FAC process for this article, we have a comment asking that we recruit someone with an editorial distance from the subject to go through the article and cleanup "poor relationships between clauses, and fuzzy back-references". I've been burned by ce requests in the past (one of which insisted that sentences were too short, and another who removed nearly every comma). I noticed your copyedits on the Augustus article in the past, and wondered if you would have a bit of time to go through this relatively short article? I would find it very instructive. • Astynax talk 19:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not swapping germs with you. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I have responded to your comments. Perhaps you can look over again and potentially support...? =) Cheers, Res Mar 00:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kablammo. After extensive commentary, the FAC on Mauna Kea has been given a restart by Karanacs. I'm now a conom and noted you had been a reviewer, so thought I would ask if you would consider revisiting and commenting on its current version. Regards, hamiltonstone ( talk) 01:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Any suggestions so far? I'm clearly not all the way through, but any ideas for improving the first six sections? -- Moni3 ( talk) 15:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Just a note: I'm about 95% done now. Would love to know your thoughts. -- Moni3 ( talk) 17:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The book you referred to was one of the major sources for my edit. I think moving the edits to elsewhere in the article would be fine with the caveat that there be a short sourced sentence in the current spot saying that many believe Joyce either reconciled in some way with his faith or even never left it. Otherwise, the remaining sentence would be misleading with regard to the critical/biographical opinion on the matter. On the discussion of whether the category "Former Roman Catholics" is appropriate, that discussion seemed a bit ill informed. As to the category "Roman Catholic writers" it seems appropriate regardless of his belief. He's virtually always included in the category especially in light of the concept of Catholic imagination. Mamalujo ( talk) 23:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Please note my co-nominator's involvement and reconsider your objection that is not based on the content of the article.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I have done some work to the lede of mechanical filter and replied to you at the FAC. Would you please revisit your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mechanical filter/archive1 and let me know whether you still feel there is a problem. Thanks, SpinningSpark 18:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Somebody screwed up when the chose the hook. There was an ALT1 that was much better, and the ALT1 - not the hook that ran - was the one that was approved. But somebody grabbed the original hook anyway. Sigh! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 21:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Kablammo, we seem to have some shared interests and work together well. If you ever want a hand, need something sorted that you think I'd be good at or want to start a co-operative project, just feel free to ask. I'm not always around, but when I am, I'll gladly help. Shem ( talk) 21:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the background to your list of questions. As I mostly edit and have an article in the FAC process, I don't want to get into the discussion on the talk page. However, from my perspective I hope would be addressed.
First, I believe that placing the onus upon nominators (for showing intellectual property issues have been resolved) is yet one more barrier discouraging nominations. Given the problem of few "reliable" reviewers, fewer nominations may seem fine in the short-term. In the long-term, however, I don't think getting fewer articles improved and submitted to GA or FA staus is a desirable thing. As it is now, verification of the copyright status seems a more appropriate job for reviewers (i.e., double-checking the article). Regardless of whether a review of copyright status comes from reviewers, nominators or both, there must be clearer guidelines (approved by Wiki's legal staff) and approved tools that can be accessed to show/verify that some level of "due diligence" has been performed.
Second, I don't know of any lawyer who would allow a client to make a certification of an article without a legal review of the contents—and particularly to an article created my multiple, sometimes anonymous, authors. Mine would have a fit if he knew that I made any statement even vaguely appearing to certify any such thing, even with caveats I inserted. In my opinion, that will be an unreasonable demand of nominators if permanently implemented. It would be far better for Wiki's attorneys to come up with some determination as to what we can show as due diligence, and then provide tools for doing that. We cannot expect or want editors, nominators and reviewers to provide legal opinions or interpretations. Even if some editor claims to have legal training, that cannot be verified—and even if it could be, we are in no position to evaluate the quality of their opinions. Nor is it reasonable to have editors, nominators or reviewers to put themselves at risk by making a statement of certification. What must be possible and desirable is for Wiki's counsel to provide clear guidelines and to back that up with sanctioned, easy-to-use tools for editors, nominators and/or reviewers to employ to perform that level of diligence (perhaps including some sort of tag with a date stamp to show when it was done).
As you may have noticed when posting your question on the Cabral FAC, that nomination still has an unresolved challenge as to the copyright status of some of the images used. In this, some of the information demanded seems to be of a fine granularity which makes an absolute determination impossible. As would be the case for most contributors, the extent of my tools to verify copyright is limited to the search facilities at Google Books and the US Copyright Office websites. However, the best those searches give is not enough to satisfy the information demanded by the reviewer there. Since copyright on images is related to copyright on text, I think it would be good to combine these for any guidelines and tools which are developed to address the level of diligence we need to perform. Sorry for the long post, which arises partly from my own frustration at what seems to be headed towards a byzantine and almost unworkable process (IP law itself is a huge mess, IMO). If Wikipedia's position for encouraging greater openess and access is to be preserved, the process needs to be easier for contributors (both editors and reviewers). If you can detect the essence of my concern through my tedious prose and think it germane, you might raise it as an issue. • Astynax talk 18:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Suggestion; momentum seems to have stalled at WT:FAC. My idea is to create a page that would be useful across all content review processes, and where we would have a centralized registry so we don't have to clutter each nomination with the same questions to repeat nominators. I'm not sure how we would name the page, so I've put it in my userspace for now-- feel free to edit. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The comment allegedly posted by Fat Man was actually posted by a troll who was trying to get Fat Man in further trouble by pretending to be his sock. That's the reason it was removed and why the page was semi'd. Please don't feed the IP troll by re-posting its message. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is the edit in question:
Hi everyone. I would like to extend happy holidays to EVERYONE, even people I previously mistreated and called "dumb" and "douche" and things of this nature. Even Courcelles. How am I evading my block? I got Wi-Fi ON AN AIRPLANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm living it up at 10,000 metres. But don't you dare block this IP; there are several other prominent Wikipedians on this flight, and they would like to edit as well, so it's not fair to punish them for the sins of the tubby. Happy Christmas, Merry Kwanzaa and kisses to all of your wives. I bear no ill will toward anyone, and if you never unblock me I WILL NOT BE SAD. Pa rum pa pum pum.-- 12.130.119.108 ( talk) 15:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
This post on TFM's talk page has now been removed (for the second time) on the suspicion that the IP is in fact someone else, who is imitating The Fat Man, and trying to get him in further trouble. To be sure, many folks with shiny new stars, and perhaps some others, have an unhealthy obsession with TFMWNCB and it is not surprising that one would engage in such tactics. It however is not clear to me that the existence of such a person, coupled with an edit by an IP, necessarily means that the person made the edit. It has been decades since I took logic but something seems to be missing.
In any event, The Fat Man's talk page is now free of the offending post and my reply. This page, of course, is not. It memorializes either (a) that I have been duped, or (b) that folks whose antennae are perhaps unduly sensitive have jumped to conclusions. In any case, my sentiments are clear: Wikipedia is a poorer place without The Fat Man, and I for one hope that wherever he is, he has a peaceful holiday season. Kablammo ( talk) 22:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC) italicized suffix added. Kablammo ( talk) 01:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I was editing from a plane, but now I'm on the ground, editing from my iPhone. Would appreciate if someone restored kablammo's holiday wishes. Love, tfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.143.86 ( talk) 23:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually the post on his talk page was from TFM.
Several weeks ago I e-mailed TFM for the first time, through the Wikipedia e-mail system, on a matter unrelated to any of this nonsense. He has now e-mailed me, confirming that he was on a plane and did post from 12.130.119.
Now I ask you: How does allowing these posts harm the Wiki? Or have we declared him a suppressive person, whom we must shun, and to whom we should not be yoked? Kablammo ( talk) 00:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course the IP he edited from on an airplane is not his home IP. Why don't you ask Alison about that? Kablammo ( talk) 01:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello RcB:
It's on display at Fort Nelson, Portsmouth. It's listed as on loan from pounds marine shipping Ltd. I'm not sure if the company still exists but they own/owned a naval scrapyard at the top end of Portsea Island. It was built in 1893 and was built by the elswick ordnance company. It's aparently a Mk III. I would assume it was fitted when the ship was reactivated. About the only reasonable route I can see for it ending up where it is would be if it was stripped out before the ship transfered to canada but I dont know if the scrapyard existed at that point.
© Geni 20:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Did you ever hear back from fort nelson?© Geni 23:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- - -
Hi there, I'm trying to identify the model of gun in Geni's photo at Fort Nelson. If it was a"Mk III" QF built as new by Elswick in 1893, it would be a 40-calibres (20 feet long internally) QF gun weighing 6.6 tons. Its cartridge was a brass case. But so far as I know, HMS Calypso had the much lighter and shorter (26 calibres) 5-ton BL gun (silk bag cartridge) of 1881-1883, and I doubt it would have been able to carry the QF 40-calibres gun. The gun looks too short for the long 40-calibres QF model, but difficult to judge end-on. A view of the breech would allow definite identification. I'm wondering whether this was one of the early 1880s BL Mk III 26-calibre guns which were later converted to QF in about 1893 by Elswick ? I.e. is this a QFC 6-inch gun ? But it lacks the bell muzzle typical of the 26-calibre BL 6-inch guns. Do you have any more information about this ? Gunlist for Calypso ? thanks. Rod. Rcbutcher ( talk) 22:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I received this e-mail in response to my enquiry:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your enquiry and apologies for the delay. This gun carries the serial number 295 and if the surviving Gun Logs belonging to Explosion! The Museum of Naval Firepower at Priddy's Hard, Gosport but currently on deposit at the Hampshire County Record Office, Winchester, are consulted it can be seen that it was removed from Calypso and returned to store in Plymouth on the 10th August 1901 and appears to have ended up in Devonport on 23rd January 1902. Sadly there are no other entries regarding its earlier (or later) life. If, as you say, she had four such guns on board later, these would obviously carry other numbers and probably recorded in those Gun Logs. At the time this information did not form part of my brief.
I am not entirely certain of the exact way this gun came to be on loan to us since it was before my time. Knowing John Pounds and his organisation as I do he would have phoned us up to let us know that he had acquired it and would we like it as a loan item.
I hope this helps.
Yours faithfully,
[name]
Curator of Artillery
Royal Armouries
I do not understand the shape of the gunhouse, but perhaps the armament changed. I have a 1963 article from Mariners Mirror which has a silhouette of other ships of the Comus class which at least suggest this shape of gunhouse.
Regards, Kablammo ( talk) 23:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. That picture is very helpful. It resembles the 6" housing of Calliope (right). It is harder to correlate it to the sponsoned gun on Calypso in Newfoundland, but it could be the same type of housing, but covered at the top by the shed built atop the gunwale bulwark. The museum piece was removed before the ship went to Newfoundland (I think two of the four were removed), so the gun and housing shown wharfside in the third image on the right would be a different rifle, but perhaps one of the remaining 6". Regards, Kablammo ( talk) 12:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm not crazy. I was like...that doesn't look like Michael Phelps...does it? But no one seems to notice until you. I'm right, right? -- mboverload @ 02:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I responded to your helpful critique. Cla68 ( talk) 05:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting that. You caught it seconds after I realized the mistake and right before I went back to make the correction RobAtSGH ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC).
I only come here out of good intentions. I'm passing along a sentiment I really think you should be privy to. We all got together, like...all of Wikipedia (they voted me the spokesmodel)... and we decided that the sum total of your existence can be explained in four words: "leg banging granny raider". Please use this information wisely. For self-flagellation and improvement.
If you would like to reply, see this source. -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
During the FAC process for this article, we have a comment asking that we recruit someone with an editorial distance from the subject to go through the article and cleanup "poor relationships between clauses, and fuzzy back-references". I've been burned by ce requests in the past (one of which insisted that sentences were too short, and another who removed nearly every comma). I noticed your copyedits on the Augustus article in the past, and wondered if you would have a bit of time to go through this relatively short article? I would find it very instructive. • Astynax talk 19:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not swapping germs with you. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I have responded to your comments. Perhaps you can look over again and potentially support...? =) Cheers, Res Mar 00:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kablammo. After extensive commentary, the FAC on Mauna Kea has been given a restart by Karanacs. I'm now a conom and noted you had been a reviewer, so thought I would ask if you would consider revisiting and commenting on its current version. Regards, hamiltonstone ( talk) 01:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Any suggestions so far? I'm clearly not all the way through, but any ideas for improving the first six sections? -- Moni3 ( talk) 15:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Just a note: I'm about 95% done now. Would love to know your thoughts. -- Moni3 ( talk) 17:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The book you referred to was one of the major sources for my edit. I think moving the edits to elsewhere in the article would be fine with the caveat that there be a short sourced sentence in the current spot saying that many believe Joyce either reconciled in some way with his faith or even never left it. Otherwise, the remaining sentence would be misleading with regard to the critical/biographical opinion on the matter. On the discussion of whether the category "Former Roman Catholics" is appropriate, that discussion seemed a bit ill informed. As to the category "Roman Catholic writers" it seems appropriate regardless of his belief. He's virtually always included in the category especially in light of the concept of Catholic imagination. Mamalujo ( talk) 23:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Please note my co-nominator's involvement and reconsider your objection that is not based on the content of the article.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I have done some work to the lede of mechanical filter and replied to you at the FAC. Would you please revisit your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mechanical filter/archive1 and let me know whether you still feel there is a problem. Thanks, SpinningSpark 18:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Somebody screwed up when the chose the hook. There was an ALT1 that was much better, and the ALT1 - not the hook that ran - was the one that was approved. But somebody grabbed the original hook anyway. Sigh! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 21:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Kablammo, we seem to have some shared interests and work together well. If you ever want a hand, need something sorted that you think I'd be good at or want to start a co-operative project, just feel free to ask. I'm not always around, but when I am, I'll gladly help. Shem ( talk) 21:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the background to your list of questions. As I mostly edit and have an article in the FAC process, I don't want to get into the discussion on the talk page. However, from my perspective I hope would be addressed.
First, I believe that placing the onus upon nominators (for showing intellectual property issues have been resolved) is yet one more barrier discouraging nominations. Given the problem of few "reliable" reviewers, fewer nominations may seem fine in the short-term. In the long-term, however, I don't think getting fewer articles improved and submitted to GA or FA staus is a desirable thing. As it is now, verification of the copyright status seems a more appropriate job for reviewers (i.e., double-checking the article). Regardless of whether a review of copyright status comes from reviewers, nominators or both, there must be clearer guidelines (approved by Wiki's legal staff) and approved tools that can be accessed to show/verify that some level of "due diligence" has been performed.
Second, I don't know of any lawyer who would allow a client to make a certification of an article without a legal review of the contents—and particularly to an article created my multiple, sometimes anonymous, authors. Mine would have a fit if he knew that I made any statement even vaguely appearing to certify any such thing, even with caveats I inserted. In my opinion, that will be an unreasonable demand of nominators if permanently implemented. It would be far better for Wiki's attorneys to come up with some determination as to what we can show as due diligence, and then provide tools for doing that. We cannot expect or want editors, nominators and reviewers to provide legal opinions or interpretations. Even if some editor claims to have legal training, that cannot be verified—and even if it could be, we are in no position to evaluate the quality of their opinions. Nor is it reasonable to have editors, nominators or reviewers to put themselves at risk by making a statement of certification. What must be possible and desirable is for Wiki's counsel to provide clear guidelines and to back that up with sanctioned, easy-to-use tools for editors, nominators and/or reviewers to employ to perform that level of diligence (perhaps including some sort of tag with a date stamp to show when it was done).
As you may have noticed when posting your question on the Cabral FAC, that nomination still has an unresolved challenge as to the copyright status of some of the images used. In this, some of the information demanded seems to be of a fine granularity which makes an absolute determination impossible. As would be the case for most contributors, the extent of my tools to verify copyright is limited to the search facilities at Google Books and the US Copyright Office websites. However, the best those searches give is not enough to satisfy the information demanded by the reviewer there. Since copyright on images is related to copyright on text, I think it would be good to combine these for any guidelines and tools which are developed to address the level of diligence we need to perform. Sorry for the long post, which arises partly from my own frustration at what seems to be headed towards a byzantine and almost unworkable process (IP law itself is a huge mess, IMO). If Wikipedia's position for encouraging greater openess and access is to be preserved, the process needs to be easier for contributors (both editors and reviewers). If you can detect the essence of my concern through my tedious prose and think it germane, you might raise it as an issue. • Astynax talk 18:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Suggestion; momentum seems to have stalled at WT:FAC. My idea is to create a page that would be useful across all content review processes, and where we would have a centralized registry so we don't have to clutter each nomination with the same questions to repeat nominators. I'm not sure how we would name the page, so I've put it in my userspace for now-- feel free to edit. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The comment allegedly posted by Fat Man was actually posted by a troll who was trying to get Fat Man in further trouble by pretending to be his sock. That's the reason it was removed and why the page was semi'd. Please don't feed the IP troll by re-posting its message. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is the edit in question:
Hi everyone. I would like to extend happy holidays to EVERYONE, even people I previously mistreated and called "dumb" and "douche" and things of this nature. Even Courcelles. How am I evading my block? I got Wi-Fi ON AN AIRPLANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm living it up at 10,000 metres. But don't you dare block this IP; there are several other prominent Wikipedians on this flight, and they would like to edit as well, so it's not fair to punish them for the sins of the tubby. Happy Christmas, Merry Kwanzaa and kisses to all of your wives. I bear no ill will toward anyone, and if you never unblock me I WILL NOT BE SAD. Pa rum pa pum pum.-- 12.130.119.108 ( talk) 15:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
This post on TFM's talk page has now been removed (for the second time) on the suspicion that the IP is in fact someone else, who is imitating The Fat Man, and trying to get him in further trouble. To be sure, many folks with shiny new stars, and perhaps some others, have an unhealthy obsession with TFMWNCB and it is not surprising that one would engage in such tactics. It however is not clear to me that the existence of such a person, coupled with an edit by an IP, necessarily means that the person made the edit. It has been decades since I took logic but something seems to be missing.
In any event, The Fat Man's talk page is now free of the offending post and my reply. This page, of course, is not. It memorializes either (a) that I have been duped, or (b) that folks whose antennae are perhaps unduly sensitive have jumped to conclusions. In any case, my sentiments are clear: Wikipedia is a poorer place without The Fat Man, and I for one hope that wherever he is, he has a peaceful holiday season. Kablammo ( talk) 22:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC) italicized suffix added. Kablammo ( talk) 01:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I was editing from a plane, but now I'm on the ground, editing from my iPhone. Would appreciate if someone restored kablammo's holiday wishes. Love, tfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.143.86 ( talk) 23:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually the post on his talk page was from TFM.
Several weeks ago I e-mailed TFM for the first time, through the Wikipedia e-mail system, on a matter unrelated to any of this nonsense. He has now e-mailed me, confirming that he was on a plane and did post from 12.130.119.
Now I ask you: How does allowing these posts harm the Wiki? Or have we declared him a suppressive person, whom we must shun, and to whom we should not be yoked? Kablammo ( talk) 00:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course the IP he edited from on an airplane is not his home IP. Why don't you ask Alison about that? Kablammo ( talk) 01:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)