No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
A real fight against dysfunctional moral relativism can be undertaken only if a basic change in social conditions makes it possible to rouse people's indignation at Mr. Nevercame Back. I trust that I have not shocked any of you by writing that. However, I do realize that some of my readers may feel that much of what I have penned about Mr. Nevercame Back in this letter is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can say only that Mr. Nevercame Back is typical of lamebrained, merciless knuckleheads in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his recommendations. Be always mindful that you, of course, now need some hard evidence that some of his former vassals say they were willing to help him lead people towards iniquity and sin because Mr. Nevercame Back convinced them that they were part of a historic mission to save the world from a fickle global conspiracy -- a belief they now reject as feckless. Well, how about this for evidence: Inherent in our legal construction of narcissism is the notion that he considers "honesty" to be a dirty word. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world. His backers often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear. My eventual goal for this letter is to encourage individuals to come out of their cocoons and flourish. I'm counting on you for your support. |
A real fight against dysfunctional moral relativism can be undertaken only if a basic change in social conditions makes it possible to rouse people's indignation at Mr. Nevercame Back. I trust that I have not shocked any of you by writing that. However, I do realize that some of my readers may feel that much of what I have penned about Mr. Nevercame Back in this letter is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can say only that Mr. Nevercame Back is typical of lamebrained, merciless knuckleheads in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his recommendations. Be always mindful that you, of course, now need some hard evidence that some of his former vassals say they were willing to help him lead people towards iniquity and sin because Mr. Nevercame Back convinced them that they were part of a historic mission to save the world from a fickle global conspiracy -- a belief they now reject as feckless. Well, how about this for evidence: Inherent in our legal construction of narcissism is the notion that he considers "honesty" to be a dirty word. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world. His backers often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear. My eventual goal for this letter is to encourage individuals to come out of their cocoons and flourish. I'm counting on you for your support. |
||
tl;dr :V:v:V:v:V:v:V:v:V:v |
|||
== History fix == |
== History fix == |
||
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)
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. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Changing the content submitted by users who have a vested interest in the quality of this site request that you allow such fine examples and illustrations to exist and be posted. I want this letter to serve as an oasis of sanity in Mr. Fat Man Who Nevercame Back IV's desert of foolishness. With this letter, I hope to draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word "isomerizeparabolization". But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: Mr. Nevercame Back makes a lot of exaggerated claims. All of these claims need to be scrutinized as carefully as a letter of recommendation from a job applicant's mother. Consider, for example, Mr. Nevercame Back's claim that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. The fact of the matter is that those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still think that quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "scientificophilosophical", his goals will degenerate into hotbeds of rumor and innuendo, have an obligation to do more than just observe what he is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to remove the misunderstanding that he has created in the minds of myriad people throughout the world. We have an obligation to take away as many of his opportunities for mischief as possible. And we have an obligation to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim that things are apt to get worse before they get better.
If Mr. Nevercame Back's plan to give people a new and largely artificial basis for evaluating things and making decisions is to be discouraged then the wisest course of action is to appeal for comity between us and Mr. Nevercame Back. Before we start down that road I ought to remind you that he insists that he has no choice but to change this country's moral infrastructure. His reasoning is that he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. Yes, I realize that that argument makes no sense, but I frequently talk about how the most troubling aspect of Mr. Nevercame Back's personality is his intolerance of dissent. I would drop the subject except that he is so cold-blooded, I could get fired from my job. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Mr. Nevercame Back has any control over. But that's inconsequential because Mr. Nevercame Back believes that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. That's just wrong. He further believes that his declamations enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. Wrong again!
Some people consider Mr. Nevercame Back's announcements a necessary evil but the truth is that Mr. Nevercame Back is on some sort of thesaurus-fueled rampage. Every sentence he writes is filled with needlessly long words like "anatomicophysiologic" and "parthenogenetic". Either Mr. Nevercame Back is deliberately trying to confuse us or else he's secretly scheming to spawn delusions of credentialism's resplendence. Although he markets himself as a high-concept, change-the-world do-gooder, Mr. Nevercame Back has written volumes about how his commercialism-prone, shrewish cabal is a respected civil-rights organization. Don't believe a word of it, though. The truth is that he ought to realize that the most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do. Unfortunately, Mr. Nevercame Back tends to utter so much verbiage about pauperism that I can conclude only that he is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand while the other hand is busy trying to vilify our history, character, values, and traditions.
I can assure you that Mr. Nevercame Back occasionally shows what appears to be warmth, joy, love, or compassion. You should realize, however, that these positive expressions are more feigned than experienced and invariably serve an ulterior motive, such as to weave his power-hungry traits, pushy criticisms, and acrimonious reports into a rich tapestry that is sure to increase alienation and delinquency among our young people. When I state that he is a walking time bomb of particularism, I'm merely trying to raise hate-filled licentious-types out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor. His argument that divine ichor flows through his veins is hopelessly flawed and utterly circuitous. Mr. Nevercame Back has endorsed the idea of peevish cannibalism in a number of very specific ways, arguing, for instance, in favor of his goons ' decision to brand me as wishy-washy. I hate having to keep reminding everybody of this, but he, already oppressive with his hideous squibs, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species -- if separate species we be -- for his reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that's a frightening thought then consider that Mr. Nevercame Back has already been able to present a false image to the world by hiding unpleasant but vitally important realities about his analects. What worries me more than that, however, is that if Mr. Nevercame Back ever manages to mortgage away our future, that's when the defecation will really hit the air conditioning.
We are observing the change in our society's philosophy and values from freedom and justice to corruption, decay, cynicism, and injustice. All of these "values" are artistically incorporated in one person: Fat Man Who Nevercame Back. Brown-nosing fogeys like Mr. Nevercame Back are not born -- they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do but because he gets a lot of perks from the system. True to form, Mr. Nevercame Back ceaselessly moves the goalposts to prevent others from benefiting from the same perks. This suggests that he hates you -- yes, you, because you, like me, want to expand people's understanding of his petty belief systems. In particular, every time Mr. Nevercame Back utters or writes a statement that supports stoicism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us. I indeed allege that we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because he frequently engages in violent fantasies involving capricious turncoats, but primarily because he's the type of person who will trump up any lie for the occasion, and the more of a thumper it is, the better Mr. Nevercame Back likes it.
While this country still has far to go before people are truly judged on the content of their character, I have one itsy-bitsy problem with Mr. Nevercame Back's ideologies. Videlicet, they promote group-think attitudes over individual insights. And that's saying nothing about how he recently claimed that society is screaming for his scare tactics. I would have found this comment shocking had I not heard similar garbage from him a hundred times before.
If Mr. Nevercame Back has any children, I recommend that he teach them about love, trust, cooperation, community, reason, negotiation, and compromise rather than violence, paranoia, and fear. Let me relate to you the most incontrovertibly true statement I've ever heard: "Repeating something over and over does not make it true." Whoever said that clearly understood that Mr. Nevercame Back always cavils at my attempts to acknowledge that pestiferous collectivism is one of the most effective tools of tyranny. That's probably because Mr. Nevercame Back is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Mr. Nevercame Back is officialism. Why? If you need help in answering that question, you may note that Mr. Nevercame Back wants us to think of him as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that he wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If Mr. Nevercame Back really wanted to be a do-gooder, he could start by admitting that he claims that the Universe belongs to him by right. I claim that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves although I should add that Mr. Nevercame Back keeps telling us that he should pervert the course of justice because "it's the right thing to do". Are we also supposed to believe that violence and prejudice are funny? I didn't think so.
I'm willing to accept that we must expose Mr. Nevercame Back's communiqués for what they really are in such a way that there is nothing Mr. Nevercame Back can do about it except learn to live with the fait accompli. I'm even willing to accept that his voiced intentions don't match his actual intentions. But he loves getting up in front of people and telling them that expansionism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions. He then boasts about how he'll cause riots in the streets before the year is over. It's all part of the media spectacle that is Fat Man Who Nevercame Back. Of course, he soaks it up and wallows in it like a pig in mud. Speaking of pigs and mud, I like to speak of Mr. Nevercame Back as "complacent". That's a reasonable term to use, I maintain, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, he has been offering what I call scornful porn stars a lot of money to create massive civil unrest. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that if Mr. Nevercame Back had two brain cells to rub together, he'd realize that if he isn't oligophrenic, I don't know who is.
Mr. Nevercame Back never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. He presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, he seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that when he says that we should derive moral guidance from his glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented biases, in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he believes he has said something very profound. Given the range and unpredictability of human behavior, it is quite possible that if he is going to talk about higher standards then he needs to live by those higher standards. You know what? There are two sorts of people in this world. There are those who visit misery and havoc upon countless millions and there are those who give our young people the values that will inspire them to fight on the battleground of ideas for our inalienable individual rights. Mr. Nevercame Back fits neatly into the former category, of course.
A real fight against dysfunctional moral relativism can be undertaken only if a basic change in social conditions makes it possible to rouse people's indignation at Mr. Nevercame Back. I trust that I have not shocked any of you by writing that. However, I do realize that some of my readers may feel that much of what I have penned about Mr. Nevercame Back in this letter is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can say only that Mr. Nevercame Back is typical of lamebrained, merciless knuckleheads in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his recommendations. Be always mindful that you, of course, now need some hard evidence that some of his former vassals say they were willing to help him lead people towards iniquity and sin because Mr. Nevercame Back convinced them that they were part of a historic mission to save the world from a fickle global conspiracy -- a belief they now reject as feckless. Well, how about this for evidence: Inherent in our legal construction of narcissism is the notion that he considers "honesty" to be a dirty word. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world. His backers often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear. My eventual goal for this letter is to encourage individuals to come out of their cocoons and flourish. I'm counting on you for your support.
tl;dr :V:v:V:v:V:v:V:v:V:v
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)
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)
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.
Hope that helps. ju66l3r 16:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
See AN. Tyrenius 03:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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. Yank sox 12:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I was trying to improve the pornography article by creating a List of pornography laws by region. However, when I did so, the footnotes are all jacked up! There should only be 7 of them, but each footnote appears twice in the list of references, for a baffling total of 14. What did I do wrong?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
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))
I'm sorry for deleting other's messages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lieutenant Dol Grenn ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For purging wikipedia of the deliberately useless articles as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick M. McCabe Tyrenius 16:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
No! I didn't delete all messages only these messages who are a little bit critism.
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)
PS Thanks for contacting me re your insult posts. This shows good sense, obviously, in the circumstances. Tyrenius 17:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.
If you pay attention to my arguments this has nothing to do with them. I do not like fan cruft.
On Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles it says at the top
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.
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)
There is business at the front. I think the party at the back is exclusive. Rintrah 14:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Ah, okay. Also, I've blocked User:The fat man never since he seems to be impersonating you. -- W.marsh 16:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to encourage you to take a look at some of the articles of this type that I've AfDed in the last few days and add your opinion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of appearances of C96 in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm Spartacus!, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who became famous only in death, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to Calvin and Hobbes among others. Otto4711 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Where are the babels? MM 13:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
I have blocked indef as vandalism only account. See user's talk page. Tyrenius 01:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hilarious user name. I am just so sorry you have to deal with people who make fun of it! Gautam Discuss 19:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Dude your username is awesome. --- 74.109.26.185 03:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
just thought i would post this link on here in case you don't check the ref desk:- this site ( http://www.concert-diary.com/home/frame.asp?when=4&ref=13 ) is the most comprehensive classical concert listings site i know. -- Alex16zx 09:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
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 -- ShelfSkewed talk 03:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Are these chaps well known in basketball? Should they be on the list of tall men? Halbared 08:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
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.
24.209.175.115 02:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
Dear fat man
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)
There exists http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log&type=renameuser, but it can only be used to search by bureaucrat who performs renamings, or by former username. [10] You can't use it to search by new username.
For admins, there also exists User:NoSeptember/admin username changes. Mike R 17:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Since it's not ready from prime time, I've userfied it until it is: User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back/Noble "Thin Man" Watts. Enjoy editing. Carlossuarez46 18:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Agne Cheese/ Wine 03:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
{{ 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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
Reviewing your contributions, I like what I see. Would you every want to run for admin? Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 18:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reverts. Amazing what goes on while you're asleep! Freshacconci 10:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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) |
That's disgusting. -- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
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).
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)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4 Please endorse the statement of dispute if you feel it is appropriate to do so. Viridae Talk 02:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding your edits to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4. I have reverted them. Please do not remove comments. Do not call other editors names. Regards, Mercury 03:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you honestly think this is likely to help? Friday (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see the MFD. The talk page that you recreated has been tagged for speedy. O 2 ( 息 • 吹) 00:57, 10 October 2007 (GMT)
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) |
Thanks for understanding. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 21:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Great edit tonight. Just wanted to say thanks. Rray 03:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Sure thing, mate. Thanks for letting me know. Smilesfozwood 19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
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 Hand Luke 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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/?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)
>> "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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(←) "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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
...but for now, just take this.
The Barnstar of Good Humor | ||
For countering rubbish with even more rubbish while being civil most, if not all, the time, you are hereby awarded the Barnstar of Good Humor. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 14:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC) |
Look at it in edit view for some...light humor. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 14:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
You could see
this. I found it while crawling through the
list of users.
By the way, have you considered
this clown to have a funny long name? --
Altiris
Helios
Exeunt
06:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
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? -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 12:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I have never read such insulting drivel before. I think you should appolagise [19]. Giano ( talk) 19:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
For kind words. Cheers, Durova Charge! 21:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hello, TFMWNCB! You have some un-answered questions on your "Q&A" page. Thanks! Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 04:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Per Talk:Sulejman Talović there is a concensus about merging. Can you please do it? Thanks, -- Gabi S. ( talk) 08:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Your kind words will be remembered when I take my throne on ArbCom mountain. -- EndlessDan 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
Thanks for your kind words. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for teh comment about my usernamez0r I Has A Username ( talk) 13:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I give you some run here. Mike R ( talk) 14:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I know 'em when I see 'em. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hail all ye faithful! ( talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC) |
...uhh, by the way, is your user name related to this? I'm just asking. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
How do you like my new userbox now?
Love, Mike R ( talk) 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Ta. Tyrenius ( talk) 07:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Just my USD 0.02.
Congratulations on your success!
Regards, Kushal t 01:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks so much for recommending WP:PURGE for the issue of my edits not showing up. Worked wonders...you're the BEST!
Kind Regards, Kazuya369 ( talk) 21:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
Thank You
JVolkblum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvolkblum ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
-- Nadir D Steinmetz 18:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
If you say so...
Birthdays of Fat Men Past – Outriggr § 07:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Wiktionary is a significant citation and should remain. Chessy999 ( talk) 14:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
Is your birthday on February 1? -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 02:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
my opinion is valid. stop censoring talk pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.24.39 ( talk) 02:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure thing. I've been pretty active in SSP as of late. :) Rudget . 17:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Think that FlanneryFamily ( talk · contribs) is the same as Jvolkblum? -- El on ka 21:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
That's a great idea - I can't wait to look at it. Would you prefer Image:Little Man Chihuahua by David Shankbone.jpg this one, or the one where he is with Image:Ingrid Newkirk by David Shankbone.jpg the founder of PETA? --David Shankbone 00:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
Oh, ok - That is a good solution :) WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This 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)
Articles meeting the featured article criteria and passing WP:FAC in time can be considered for the April Fools' mainpage, as discussed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-03/Dispatches. I Know You Can Do It. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
{{ unblock-auto}}
I don't understand autoblocks; what to do? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Lovely, I 'spose I'm next. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
I like the edit summary [44]. No worries it happens to all of us. Happy editing. Tiptoety talk 01:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Oh well, here goes: JNW ( talk) 04:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The presence of your company is urgently required here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You're a ham. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
A real fight against dysfunctional moral relativism can be undertaken only if a basic change in social conditions makes it possible to rouse people's indignation at Mr. Nevercame Back. I trust that I have not shocked any of you by writing that. However, I do realize that some of my readers may feel that much of what I have penned about Mr. Nevercame Back in this letter is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can say only that Mr. Nevercame Back is typical of lamebrained, merciless knuckleheads in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his recommendations. Be always mindful that you, of course, now need some hard evidence that some of his former vassals say they were willing to help him lead people towards iniquity and sin because Mr. Nevercame Back convinced them that they were part of a historic mission to save the world from a fickle global conspiracy -- a belief they now reject as feckless. Well, how about this for evidence: Inherent in our legal construction of narcissism is the notion that he considers "honesty" to be a dirty word. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world. His backers often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear. My eventual goal for this letter is to encourage individuals to come out of their cocoons and flourish. I'm counting on you for your support. |
A real fight against dysfunctional moral relativism can be undertaken only if a basic change in social conditions makes it possible to rouse people's indignation at Mr. Nevercame Back. I trust that I have not shocked any of you by writing that. However, I do realize that some of my readers may feel that much of what I have penned about Mr. Nevercame Back in this letter is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can say only that Mr. Nevercame Back is typical of lamebrained, merciless knuckleheads in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his recommendations. Be always mindful that you, of course, now need some hard evidence that some of his former vassals say they were willing to help him lead people towards iniquity and sin because Mr. Nevercame Back convinced them that they were part of a historic mission to save the world from a fickle global conspiracy -- a belief they now reject as feckless. Well, how about this for evidence: Inherent in our legal construction of narcissism is the notion that he considers "honesty" to be a dirty word. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world. His backers often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear. My eventual goal for this letter is to encourage individuals to come out of their cocoons and flourish. I'm counting on you for your support. |
||
tl;dr :V:v:V:v:V:v:V:v:V:v |
|||
== History fix == |
== History fix == |
||
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)
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. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Changing the content submitted by users who have a vested interest in the quality of this site request that you allow such fine examples and illustrations to exist and be posted. I want this letter to serve as an oasis of sanity in Mr. Fat Man Who Nevercame Back IV's desert of foolishness. With this letter, I hope to draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word "isomerizeparabolization". But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: Mr. Nevercame Back makes a lot of exaggerated claims. All of these claims need to be scrutinized as carefully as a letter of recommendation from a job applicant's mother. Consider, for example, Mr. Nevercame Back's claim that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. The fact of the matter is that those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still think that quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "scientificophilosophical", his goals will degenerate into hotbeds of rumor and innuendo, have an obligation to do more than just observe what he is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to remove the misunderstanding that he has created in the minds of myriad people throughout the world. We have an obligation to take away as many of his opportunities for mischief as possible. And we have an obligation to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim that things are apt to get worse before they get better.
If Mr. Nevercame Back's plan to give people a new and largely artificial basis for evaluating things and making decisions is to be discouraged then the wisest course of action is to appeal for comity between us and Mr. Nevercame Back. Before we start down that road I ought to remind you that he insists that he has no choice but to change this country's moral infrastructure. His reasoning is that he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. Yes, I realize that that argument makes no sense, but I frequently talk about how the most troubling aspect of Mr. Nevercame Back's personality is his intolerance of dissent. I would drop the subject except that he is so cold-blooded, I could get fired from my job. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Mr. Nevercame Back has any control over. But that's inconsequential because Mr. Nevercame Back believes that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. That's just wrong. He further believes that his declamations enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. Wrong again!
Some people consider Mr. Nevercame Back's announcements a necessary evil but the truth is that Mr. Nevercame Back is on some sort of thesaurus-fueled rampage. Every sentence he writes is filled with needlessly long words like "anatomicophysiologic" and "parthenogenetic". Either Mr. Nevercame Back is deliberately trying to confuse us or else he's secretly scheming to spawn delusions of credentialism's resplendence. Although he markets himself as a high-concept, change-the-world do-gooder, Mr. Nevercame Back has written volumes about how his commercialism-prone, shrewish cabal is a respected civil-rights organization. Don't believe a word of it, though. The truth is that he ought to realize that the most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do. Unfortunately, Mr. Nevercame Back tends to utter so much verbiage about pauperism that I can conclude only that he is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand while the other hand is busy trying to vilify our history, character, values, and traditions.
I can assure you that Mr. Nevercame Back occasionally shows what appears to be warmth, joy, love, or compassion. You should realize, however, that these positive expressions are more feigned than experienced and invariably serve an ulterior motive, such as to weave his power-hungry traits, pushy criticisms, and acrimonious reports into a rich tapestry that is sure to increase alienation and delinquency among our young people. When I state that he is a walking time bomb of particularism, I'm merely trying to raise hate-filled licentious-types out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor. His argument that divine ichor flows through his veins is hopelessly flawed and utterly circuitous. Mr. Nevercame Back has endorsed the idea of peevish cannibalism in a number of very specific ways, arguing, for instance, in favor of his goons ' decision to brand me as wishy-washy. I hate having to keep reminding everybody of this, but he, already oppressive with his hideous squibs, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species -- if separate species we be -- for his reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that's a frightening thought then consider that Mr. Nevercame Back has already been able to present a false image to the world by hiding unpleasant but vitally important realities about his analects. What worries me more than that, however, is that if Mr. Nevercame Back ever manages to mortgage away our future, that's when the defecation will really hit the air conditioning.
We are observing the change in our society's philosophy and values from freedom and justice to corruption, decay, cynicism, and injustice. All of these "values" are artistically incorporated in one person: Fat Man Who Nevercame Back. Brown-nosing fogeys like Mr. Nevercame Back are not born -- they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do but because he gets a lot of perks from the system. True to form, Mr. Nevercame Back ceaselessly moves the goalposts to prevent others from benefiting from the same perks. This suggests that he hates you -- yes, you, because you, like me, want to expand people's understanding of his petty belief systems. In particular, every time Mr. Nevercame Back utters or writes a statement that supports stoicism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us. I indeed allege that we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because he frequently engages in violent fantasies involving capricious turncoats, but primarily because he's the type of person who will trump up any lie for the occasion, and the more of a thumper it is, the better Mr. Nevercame Back likes it.
While this country still has far to go before people are truly judged on the content of their character, I have one itsy-bitsy problem with Mr. Nevercame Back's ideologies. Videlicet, they promote group-think attitudes over individual insights. And that's saying nothing about how he recently claimed that society is screaming for his scare tactics. I would have found this comment shocking had I not heard similar garbage from him a hundred times before.
If Mr. Nevercame Back has any children, I recommend that he teach them about love, trust, cooperation, community, reason, negotiation, and compromise rather than violence, paranoia, and fear. Let me relate to you the most incontrovertibly true statement I've ever heard: "Repeating something over and over does not make it true." Whoever said that clearly understood that Mr. Nevercame Back always cavils at my attempts to acknowledge that pestiferous collectivism is one of the most effective tools of tyranny. That's probably because Mr. Nevercame Back is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Mr. Nevercame Back is officialism. Why? If you need help in answering that question, you may note that Mr. Nevercame Back wants us to think of him as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that he wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If Mr. Nevercame Back really wanted to be a do-gooder, he could start by admitting that he claims that the Universe belongs to him by right. I claim that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves although I should add that Mr. Nevercame Back keeps telling us that he should pervert the course of justice because "it's the right thing to do". Are we also supposed to believe that violence and prejudice are funny? I didn't think so.
I'm willing to accept that we must expose Mr. Nevercame Back's communiqués for what they really are in such a way that there is nothing Mr. Nevercame Back can do about it except learn to live with the fait accompli. I'm even willing to accept that his voiced intentions don't match his actual intentions. But he loves getting up in front of people and telling them that expansionism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions. He then boasts about how he'll cause riots in the streets before the year is over. It's all part of the media spectacle that is Fat Man Who Nevercame Back. Of course, he soaks it up and wallows in it like a pig in mud. Speaking of pigs and mud, I like to speak of Mr. Nevercame Back as "complacent". That's a reasonable term to use, I maintain, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, he has been offering what I call scornful porn stars a lot of money to create massive civil unrest. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that if Mr. Nevercame Back had two brain cells to rub together, he'd realize that if he isn't oligophrenic, I don't know who is.
Mr. Nevercame Back never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. He presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, he seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that when he says that we should derive moral guidance from his glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented biases, in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he believes he has said something very profound. Given the range and unpredictability of human behavior, it is quite possible that if he is going to talk about higher standards then he needs to live by those higher standards. You know what? There are two sorts of people in this world. There are those who visit misery and havoc upon countless millions and there are those who give our young people the values that will inspire them to fight on the battleground of ideas for our inalienable individual rights. Mr. Nevercame Back fits neatly into the former category, of course.
A real fight against dysfunctional moral relativism can be undertaken only if a basic change in social conditions makes it possible to rouse people's indignation at Mr. Nevercame Back. I trust that I have not shocked any of you by writing that. However, I do realize that some of my readers may feel that much of what I have penned about Mr. Nevercame Back in this letter is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can say only that Mr. Nevercame Back is typical of lamebrained, merciless knuckleheads in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his recommendations. Be always mindful that you, of course, now need some hard evidence that some of his former vassals say they were willing to help him lead people towards iniquity and sin because Mr. Nevercame Back convinced them that they were part of a historic mission to save the world from a fickle global conspiracy -- a belief they now reject as feckless. Well, how about this for evidence: Inherent in our legal construction of narcissism is the notion that he considers "honesty" to be a dirty word. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world. His backers often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear. My eventual goal for this letter is to encourage individuals to come out of their cocoons and flourish. I'm counting on you for your support.
tl;dr :V:v:V:v:V:v:V:v:V:v
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)
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)
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.
Hope that helps. ju66l3r 16:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
See AN. Tyrenius 03:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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. Yank sox 12:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I was trying to improve the pornography article by creating a List of pornography laws by region. However, when I did so, the footnotes are all jacked up! There should only be 7 of them, but each footnote appears twice in the list of references, for a baffling total of 14. What did I do wrong?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
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))
I'm sorry for deleting other's messages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lieutenant Dol Grenn ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For purging wikipedia of the deliberately useless articles as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick M. McCabe Tyrenius 16:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
No! I didn't delete all messages only these messages who are a little bit critism.
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)
PS Thanks for contacting me re your insult posts. This shows good sense, obviously, in the circumstances. Tyrenius 17:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.
If you pay attention to my arguments this has nothing to do with them. I do not like fan cruft.
On Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles it says at the top
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.
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)
There is business at the front. I think the party at the back is exclusive. Rintrah 14:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Ah, okay. Also, I've blocked User:The fat man never since he seems to be impersonating you. -- W.marsh 16:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to encourage you to take a look at some of the articles of this type that I've AfDed in the last few days and add your opinion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of appearances of C96 in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm Spartacus!, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who became famous only in death, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to Calvin and Hobbes among others. Otto4711 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Where are the babels? MM 13:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
I have blocked indef as vandalism only account. See user's talk page. Tyrenius 01:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hilarious user name. I am just so sorry you have to deal with people who make fun of it! Gautam Discuss 19:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Dude your username is awesome. --- 74.109.26.185 03:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
just thought i would post this link on here in case you don't check the ref desk:- this site ( http://www.concert-diary.com/home/frame.asp?when=4&ref=13 ) is the most comprehensive classical concert listings site i know. -- Alex16zx 09:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
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 -- ShelfSkewed talk 03:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Are these chaps well known in basketball? Should they be on the list of tall men? Halbared 08:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
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.
24.209.175.115 02:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
Dear fat man
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)
There exists http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log&type=renameuser, but it can only be used to search by bureaucrat who performs renamings, or by former username. [10] You can't use it to search by new username.
For admins, there also exists User:NoSeptember/admin username changes. Mike R 17:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Since it's not ready from prime time, I've userfied it until it is: User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back/Noble "Thin Man" Watts. Enjoy editing. Carlossuarez46 18:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Agne Cheese/ Wine 03:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
{{ 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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
Reviewing your contributions, I like what I see. Would you every want to run for admin? Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 18:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reverts. Amazing what goes on while you're asleep! Freshacconci 10:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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) |
That's disgusting. -- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
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).
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)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4 Please endorse the statement of dispute if you feel it is appropriate to do so. Viridae Talk 02:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding your edits to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4. I have reverted them. Please do not remove comments. Do not call other editors names. Regards, Mercury 03:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you honestly think this is likely to help? Friday (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see the MFD. The talk page that you recreated has been tagged for speedy. O 2 ( 息 • 吹) 00:57, 10 October 2007 (GMT)
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) |
Thanks for understanding. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 21:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Great edit tonight. Just wanted to say thanks. Rray 03:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Sure thing, mate. Thanks for letting me know. Smilesfozwood 19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
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 Hand Luke 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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/?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)
>> "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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(←) "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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
...but for now, just take this.
The Barnstar of Good Humor | ||
For countering rubbish with even more rubbish while being civil most, if not all, the time, you are hereby awarded the Barnstar of Good Humor. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 14:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC) |
Look at it in edit view for some...light humor. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 14:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
You could see
this. I found it while crawling through the
list of users.
By the way, have you considered
this clown to have a funny long name? --
Altiris
Helios
Exeunt
06:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
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? -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 12:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I have never read such insulting drivel before. I think you should appolagise [19]. Giano ( talk) 19:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
For kind words. Cheers, Durova Charge! 21:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hello, TFMWNCB! You have some un-answered questions on your "Q&A" page. Thanks! Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 04:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Per Talk:Sulejman Talović there is a concensus about merging. Can you please do it? Thanks, -- Gabi S. ( talk) 08:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Your kind words will be remembered when I take my throne on ArbCom mountain. -- EndlessDan 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
Thanks for your kind words. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for teh comment about my usernamez0r I Has A Username ( talk) 13:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I give you some run here. Mike R ( talk) 14:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I know 'em when I see 'em. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hail all ye faithful! ( talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC) |
...uhh, by the way, is your user name related to this? I'm just asking. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
How do you like my new userbox now?
Love, Mike R ( talk) 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Ta. Tyrenius ( talk) 07:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Just my USD 0.02.
Congratulations on your success!
Regards, Kushal t 01:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks so much for recommending WP:PURGE for the issue of my edits not showing up. Worked wonders...you're the BEST!
Kind Regards, Kazuya369 ( talk) 21:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
Thank You
JVolkblum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvolkblum ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
-- Nadir D Steinmetz 18:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
If you say so...
Birthdays of Fat Men Past – Outriggr § 07:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Wiktionary is a significant citation and should remain. Chessy999 ( talk) 14:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
Is your birthday on February 1? -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 02:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
my opinion is valid. stop censoring talk pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.24.39 ( talk) 02:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure thing. I've been pretty active in SSP as of late. :) Rudget . 17:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Think that FlanneryFamily ( talk · contribs) is the same as Jvolkblum? -- El on ka 21:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
That's a great idea - I can't wait to look at it. Would you prefer Image:Little Man Chihuahua by David Shankbone.jpg this one, or the one where he is with Image:Ingrid Newkirk by David Shankbone.jpg the founder of PETA? --David Shankbone 00:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
Oh, ok - That is a good solution :) WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This 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)
Articles meeting the featured article criteria and passing WP:FAC in time can be considered for the April Fools' mainpage, as discussed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-03/Dispatches. I Know You Can Do It. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
{{ unblock-auto}}
I don't understand autoblocks; what to do? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Lovely, I 'spose I'm next. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
I like the edit summary [44]. No worries it happens to all of us. Happy editing. Tiptoety talk 01:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Oh well, here goes: JNW ( talk) 04:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The presence of your company is urgently required here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You're a ham. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
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)