TFMWNCB INDEFINITELY |
|
I am forty years old. It's been quite a while since someone has attempted to flatter my youth. It is also July. In California, little ice exists outside of margarita glasses during this season. Cheers, Durova 277 14:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm happy to see my fat lady survived on your archive header !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibtc9J9AUqk&feature=related
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC) (who always thought 40 was young!)
Thanks for your note. However I've never adopted a user so I'd be a poor "adopter". If you're interested in being adopted I suggest Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User, which contains instructions for seeking adoption. Feel free to contact me if you need help with any specific issue. Will Beback talk 21:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Who is this person, and why is he messing with me ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
{{gblock|block evasion, as per your own admission, as well as disruption and inappropriate use of humor|1 week}}
You've done better satire, by the way.-- Tznkai ( talk) 06:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The last two, by the way was "welcome to America, Macaca! "
From my talk page:
Can you please reconsider your one week block on the Fat man. Cool Hand Luke, an arb, apparently has no problem with that edit, he commented on it and didn't remove it. Nor do several other people who commented in good humor as well. A week's block is ridiculously long (any block is too long) for something that is not disruptive, an simply upsets your sensibilities. Viridae Talk 13:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
What does inappropriate use of humor mean? -- Moni3 ( talk) 19:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a very serious gender gap in its contributors; fewer than 20% of our editors are women. An even smaller percentage of women hold adminship or other advanced permissions. It's no wonder to me that we have so few women editing; many women editors of my acquaintance have never even admitted onwiki that they are female. Do you think that's likely to change when one of the few women to run the gauntlet of election is portrayed as having sexual relations with a colleague? Does it occur to you that perhaps other people are seeing this and thinking it might be accepted behaviour, especially when someone else undoes the redaction (yes, I am looking at you, Viridae)? I have grown inured to the constant browbeating that comes with being a member of the Arbitration Committee, but this was a new low, unquestionably sexist (you wouldn't have used that image if both arbitrators were male), and a personalised insult that was beyond poor taste. I don't expect an apology, but I do expect you to understand that your unthinking desire to poke fun can have unintended consequences. If we are unsuccessful in attracting qualified women candidates for the Arbitration Committee this year, I will look to this episode as one of the causes. Risker ( talk) 16:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Dammit Fats, if you're gonna troll with Francisco, go with the best. Herewith an exhibition of Spain's finest blockable works of art, with suggested captions. Put 'em on your local Wikicrat's talk page for a Real Fun Time:
Somehow I don't think I could curate an exhibit like this for, say, Georgia O'Keefe. This exhibition will run through November 1 at the ever expanding Museum of Wikipedia Atrocities. I'm resigning. Don't ask me to stay or I'll mess up your talk page again. -- Noroton ( talk) 04:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The article Gail King has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
Proposed Deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Tsange ►
talk 16:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You are an interesting character. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 05:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated OBAMA! ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 10:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Really? That's skirting common courtesy and Wikipedia's civility policies.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 08:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
And I am going to copy the text from the subpage user talk to here (so it will actually be kept somewhere because that page will surely be deleted)— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 08:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC):
- Bambenek has never been notable and never will be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. The only references on this page show that he was a speaker at a workshop, was quoted for two short sentences in the NYTimes, slightly more times in the Washington Post, and appeared on a mock news show where he was used to produce comedic effect. The only way we can catch his sockpuppets (he has edited in the past) is the fact that they come back every few months to request an article be made. This is in its totality a wholly unreferenced BLP with the only instances of references being used to say "Oh, he's notable because he was quoted in three news sources".— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 08:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- "And never will be"?????? That's a very strong (not to mention purely and groundlessly speculative) statement and shows you are incapable of looking at the Bambanek question objectively.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 08:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- We have policies that determine whether or not an article is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (people). John Bambenek does not fulfill its primary criteria which is that "he has [not] been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." He is most certainly not the subject of the workshop, the New York Times article, the Washington Post article, or the Daily Show's Daylight Savings Time sketch. Until he becomes the subject, to be specific the focus, of any sort of publication that fulfills the English Wikipedia's reliable source criteria, then there will never be an article on John Bambenek, John C. Bambenek, John C. A. Bambenek, or any variation thereof.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 08:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Just because you moved the page into your own user space does not mean that it will not still be under MFD.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 15:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
"FMWNCB, I'll unblock your IP in a minute, so that you are free to edit constructively without any potential accusations of block-evasion. I hope you'll reciprocate the good faith with all editors, and not let this unblock turn into egg on my face. Welcome back! Abecedare (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)"
{{gblock|abusing Wikipedia as a battleground|24 hours}}
Tweak Durova et al on your own time.--
Tznkai (
talk) 06:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you need just the citations, or the full texts of the articles? I'm not sure if it's ok or not to post the full texts of newspaper/magazine articles, even in userspace, because they're copyrighted. I could probably email the full text of each to you if that's preferable and list the citations in your userspace for others to see. Cla68 ( talk) 23:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It occurred to me that it would probably help if we had a proper article about the News-Gazette before the Bambenek article can come to be.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 23:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Please either change your username, or never come back to Wikipedia. Otherwise, you are a flagrant liar, sir.
This is a ridiculous statement, of course. But so is your request that I change my signature - that I was using for two years before Shankbone ever registered his account. DS ( talk) 19:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you could easily graph the rapid increase in stupidity over the holidays on Wikipedia. Thank God tomorrow is Monday. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 21:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you Artie Lange? -- Andy Walsh (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Would you consider standing for adminship? GTD 00:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
... while the commentary on WR is often illuminating, and always humorous, the brain power over there is sadly missing recently. No commentary on them, but WR seems to be dying as much as Wiki is, and the commentary over there lately often completely misses the point or is just blatantly wrong ... it didn't used to be like that :) It used to be a place where some of the more insightful posters really got to the bottom of important issues; instead, these days, it's become a place where everyone and their brother weighs in with uninformed commentary on everything including the kitchen sink, and air dirty laundry or visit grievances and carry grudges while completely missing important issues. In other words, it's the internet, where anyone can say anything, even if they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground. And I can't imagine the usefulness in engaging misinfo on *two* places at once, where the readers of one site are as obsessed as the readers they criticize on the other ! EveryKing is always entertaining, though :) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Snooki, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snooki. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Barnstars from FTMWNCB to David Shankbome, a barnstar that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this barnstar satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TFMWNCB is a butterfly. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the AWARD to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
If you need, you can contact me if unsure why you received this message; however I am a robot and as such dont give one flying fuck. Ceoil ―Œ(talk) 15:96, 73 February 1821 (UTC)
. . . on your elevation to your new position! Do you need a new avatar?
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, now we are related... Grapebowl ( talk) 13:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Please don't remove a legitimate tag on a problematic question. the tag is there to keep responses from straying into arguments or original research on a topic where people will likely be inclined to do so. thanks. -- Ludwigs2 18:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't vandalize like you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or you will be blocked from editing. VoteJagoffForMayor ( talk) 03:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe YOU will be blocked becos i am like rubber u r like glue if u say things to me they bounce off me and stick to u.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 03:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. Nakon 03:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's the official vid. How is Moni doing these days? Did she quit (if so, I'd take it with a grain of salt; no one ever really quits)? I always liked that oddball.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 16:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I've reduced the indefinite block to 48 hours. When the block expires, please refrain from
disruptively editing the project. Thanks,
Nakon 04:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
hello i am the fat man who never came back. blocks are preventative not punitive. so like i was blocked for say some rude things at AN/I like call ppl a "douche" (LOL) and things like this. but i wish to be unblock because i would like to do the REFERENCE DESK ONLY and maybe make some minor edit to sports articles. i will not say things at AN/I because i don't like those ppl anyway. because i promise not do say these rude things at AN/I, there is nothing to prevent. ALSO WE CAN MAKE A DEAL if i say more rude things at AN/I in the next 48 hrs you can block me for 9999999999999999999999 hours, but for now i just need to respond to some comments that ppl made to me at the REFERENCE DESK. ok thx
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi jpgordon. first of all, as i have expressed to you many times in the past, i have a deep respect for you--not necessarily as a Wikipedia editor (i thought you were a lousy arbitrator)--but as a musician, a human being, and a MAN. i would like to remind everyone that you played horns in Oingo Boingo many years ago and that you ride a horse and that you have a beard and things of this nature. Now that pleasantries have been exchanged, I must say that I don't particularly understand your response to my block request. whether my edits would be "any potential benefit to Wikiedia" is entirely irrelevant. The duration of my block is only slated to be 48 hours long--if you truly believed my edits to be worthless to the project, would they not be just as worthless when the block expired as they would be if you unblocked me immediately? So the issue isn't really whether my presence "benefits" this silly website; the issue is whether I should be allowed to resume editing NOW or LATER.
The question is WHY must I be allowed to edit posthaste rather than, as the drooling imbecile below instructs me, to "wait it out." Quite simply, there are URGENT questions on the Reference Desk that require my immediate attention. If I don't attend to them now, I fear that lesser, misguided and occasionally malicious editors will respond to these questions and give people the WRONG ANSWER. This may be hard for you to believe, but I could barely sleep last night worrying about the tidal wave of misinformation that has engulfed the Miscellaneous and Humanities sections of the Reference Desk since I was blocked. I need to help those poor people NOW. The reason I was blocked had nothing to do with my sterling and award-winning assistance at the Reference Desk; I was blocked for my naughty (but, in my view, entirely warranted) behavior at AN/I. I have already given you my word that I do not plan to mix it up at the MORONIC incidents board (for at least a couple weeks) but want only to assist my fellow man and impart my wisdom and knowledge at the Reference Desk as well as make minor edits to articles with mistakes them. It is URGENT. Also, I am free all day today (Tuesday), but tomorrow I have plans to go out for pizza and to clean my house and after that I have houseguests, so I won't have much time to edit Wikipedia if I wait for my block to expire. Now that I have explained myself, I expect you to clarify your response to my unblock request as well. Please unblock me immediately. Regards, TFM.
Decline reason:
Regardless of any other circumstances, I've reinstated your block to indefinite based on your totally unjustified rant below Jac16888 Talk 15:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Okay how about this... you shorten my block to a week or so (my houseguests will be gone by then), I issue a grudging apology to "HalfShadow" and we call it even.
Decline reason:
No evidence that should you be unblocked your disruptive behaviour will stop. Judging from your behaviour on this talk page there is every indication that it will continue. We don't unblock users because they "grudgingly" apologise: this isn't some sort of trade. You are expected to apologise (and not even have cause to have to do so in the first place) without the incentive of an unblock. Clearly you are not currently able to edit in a collaborative environment Kingpin 13 ( talk) 16:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
What do you think, Fat Man? Should the redlink be blue? Regards. Kablammo ( talk) 16:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, lookatthat! We now have Jester's privilege redirecting to Jester's privelege: Use English. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I came here to block this account for misusing an alternative account but I see that you've been blocked already. Last September, when I ran the check on the trolling account and saw that it was you, I asked you to link to this account. You refused to do so, saying that you would not return to this account because of concerns related to privacy. I let the matter drop then out of respect for the concern about privacy. Now I see you have returned to editing with this account and are trolling again.
In order for the Community to make a well thought out judgment about your conduct, all of the information needs to be brought forward to the community. So, I plan to link to your trolling account unless you give me a specific reason within policy that it would be a privacy violation to do so. I've looked through the edits of all of your accounts and those made by you logged out, and I see nothing that should prevent me from linking them. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 17:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
You have some reasonable contributions in the past. I don't know at this point whether you seriously want or expect to be unblocked or not. I think that if you step back and reread everything you've posted over the past couple of days you will agree that it has all been puerile, unhelpful to building an encyclopedia or a community, and perhaps worst of all from your point of view, not even especially amusing.
For the benefit of anyone who might need to look at an unblock request at some point: do you seriously want to contribute to Wikipedia in a sensible way again sometime, or are you just basically making a de facto retirement announcement in a characteristically idiosyncratic fashion? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
TFM, you naughty wittle boy ... your antics have seriously compromised the Project. I'd like to see these installed for every editor who has them. Fair is fair. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I never once abused them, nor was I accused of doing so.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 19:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
TFM, you've got to be aware that you have some people on Wiki who are going to be looking at anything you do for issues. I think your intentions to avoid ANI are a good direction. Gimmetoo ( talk) 08:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
You know how to behave appropriately, and you know how to behave inappropriately. From this point forward, appropriately would be better. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad is absolutely right. You do know how to behave. From this point on we expect the maturity and seriousness demanded by this fine encyclopedic project and its superb administrative team. And no damn backsass, young man. __ WC XXXIII ( talk) 19:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Most people prefer early Dylan and Cypress Hill's first album to their later stuff.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 15:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope someone renames your account to The Fat Man Who Will Never Come Back. lolollolololloololol
TFM, if TS wanted to make a fuss about [8], there are admins who would have blocked you for it. I'm assuming from TS's revert that this isn't just some sort of in-joke between you two. You also said you would stay away from ANI [9]. Come on, man. Gimmetoo ( talk) 12:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is someone wanking on one of *my* articles? Happy Turkey Day, Butterball !! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Dude wants a mentor; get out of your post-tryptophan haze and help a fellow in need. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Eagles
24/7
(C) 22:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Look the AN/I edit a while back was trolling, we are willing to unblock you if you decide to stop with the behavior. A little humor or Wikipedia Review posts are fine, but attacks and sockpuppetry? Dude, you have alot of supporters but you have to chill with the behavior, as some people don't like it, considering all your indef blocks. What do you say? Secret account 00:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. This is going to make the work we were going to do on WikiProject Anti-fat bias very difficult. -- Andy Walsh (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thx-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 22:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
uh....... oops?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 23:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
What you need to do to be unblocked is to show Wikipedia and the other people who edit it a level of respect and decorum that you have heretofore not shown it. You're interactions with people in general show that you do not hold this project, or the people that work on it, any respect. If you believed this project to be worthwhile, you would communicate with the other people here with a level of discourse befitting it. That you do not, and indeed, that you continue to exhibit the same sort of immature behavior that got your other account, Bad edits r dumb, blocked shows that you are only hanging around here to screw with other people and see how many people you can upset and get riled up. This is the textbook definition of trolling. If you wish to be allowed to edit Wikipedia, you will begin to exhibit behavior that shows you intend to treat it seriously. -- Jayron 32 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Using a combination of twinkle and the rollback function.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 23:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
THANK YOU FOR HELPING MY BROTHER. HE IS NONE TOO BRIGHT AND I AM GLAD U HELP HIM. NOW WE ARE FRIENDS :-D-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 00:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you want me to ask for semi-protection for your user page, in order to keep the riff-raff [12] away from it? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
At The Fat Man...'s request, and with the (reluctant) consent of the blocking administrator, I have reenabled his ability to edit this talkpage. I hope that I will not wind up being sorry I have done this. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I wish to be unblocked under the following proviso: will ONLY edit AN/I and my talk page. I wish to respond to some of the misconceptions and untruths currently being circulated in that venue. Until the AN/I thread is "resolved" (either by the community demonstrating consensus to ban me, or by agreeing to allow me to edit once i promise to be a good man), I will only edit in those two places. I won't call anyone "douche" or "dum" or "dumb" but I will defend myself admirably if I am being lied about. If I do not follow this proviso, I understand I will be reblocked. Cheers, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Given how you've behaved in the thread below, I can only think you're unwilling to stop taunting/trolling other editors and hence, that seems to be mostly what you want to do here. If you carry on with this here on your talk page, you'll be locked out of it again, too. Owing to your behaviour, another admin has again locked you out from editing this talk page.
Gwen Gale (
talk) 04:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
How many second chances have we given you? access_denied ( talk) 02:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
so.... like I can't have a laff with me mates? EVER EVER EVER? Strictly business? like, ALL THE TIME?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 03:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Send me one more abusive e-mail, and I will lock your e-mail privileges. Do not, for any purpose, ever e-mail me again. Courcelles 00:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The text of off-wiki communications such as e-mails should not be posted on-wiki without the author's permission, except perhaps in very limited and extraordinary circumstances. Given Courcelles' record on the project, I think we can accept as a fact his statement that he received an e-mail from The Fat Man... and that he found its contents inappropriate, although we are not in a position to evaluate precisely how troubling they might have been. For the record, I have received two e-mails from The Fat Man... in the past two days, and their contents were civil and reasonable, quite different in tone from most of what he has written on this page. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
To TFM: Regarding the 2 short emails you sent me: No. I made no mistake. If you want the status quo changed, please contact the Arbitration committee using the instructions located at WP:BASC. The discussion at WP:ANI generated no consensus to overturn the current situation, so your best option is to convince the arbitration committee of the wisdom of doing so.-- Jayron 32 21:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Four hours ago I received the following e-mail by you, which I am reproducing here in its entirety, as per the rules concerning e-mail on my user page:
I do not know what action by me you refer to, but I believe that I have not ever said anything about you except for brief comments in the recent noticeboard threads concerning your conduct. Such e-mails are unconstructive, and in view of the discussion above, if you continue to send similar e-mails to me, I will remove your ability to do so. Sandstein 07:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Fat Man-- thank you for e-mailing me (my first ever from you!) and confirming the two IPs were you.
Your holiday wishes apparently annoyed folks so I won't repost them here, at least. I do not understand what removal of your messages accomplishes, but I will not otherwise characterize them here, as that would not be in keeping with the spirit of the season and your message.
But I for one thank you for your many content edits, your work on an FA, your application of BLP principles, and other contributions to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is poorer without you, but was enriched by your presence while you were here.
Best wishes, Kablammo ( talk) 00:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Roger Alan Wade has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?) 10:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roger Alan Wade is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Alan Wade until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ass cancer. Since you had some involvement with the Ass cancer redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 19:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect OBAMA!. Since you had some involvement with the OBAMA! redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - The ChampionMan 1234 23:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect OBAMA!. Since you had some involvement with the OBAMA! redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Nevé – selbert 19:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ass cancer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ass cancer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 22:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Macaca (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 16:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pool's closed due to AIDS. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 4#Pool's closed due to AIDS until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 14:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
TFMWNCB INDEFINITELY |
|
I am forty years old. It's been quite a while since someone has attempted to flatter my youth. It is also July. In California, little ice exists outside of margarita glasses during this season. Cheers, Durova 277 14:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm happy to see my fat lady survived on your archive header !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibtc9J9AUqk&feature=related
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC) (who always thought 40 was young!)
Thanks for your note. However I've never adopted a user so I'd be a poor "adopter". If you're interested in being adopted I suggest Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User, which contains instructions for seeking adoption. Feel free to contact me if you need help with any specific issue. Will Beback talk 21:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Who is this person, and why is he messing with me ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
{{gblock|block evasion, as per your own admission, as well as disruption and inappropriate use of humor|1 week}}
You've done better satire, by the way.-- Tznkai ( talk) 06:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The last two, by the way was "welcome to America, Macaca! "
From my talk page:
Can you please reconsider your one week block on the Fat man. Cool Hand Luke, an arb, apparently has no problem with that edit, he commented on it and didn't remove it. Nor do several other people who commented in good humor as well. A week's block is ridiculously long (any block is too long) for something that is not disruptive, an simply upsets your sensibilities. Viridae Talk 13:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
What does inappropriate use of humor mean? -- Moni3 ( talk) 19:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a very serious gender gap in its contributors; fewer than 20% of our editors are women. An even smaller percentage of women hold adminship or other advanced permissions. It's no wonder to me that we have so few women editing; many women editors of my acquaintance have never even admitted onwiki that they are female. Do you think that's likely to change when one of the few women to run the gauntlet of election is portrayed as having sexual relations with a colleague? Does it occur to you that perhaps other people are seeing this and thinking it might be accepted behaviour, especially when someone else undoes the redaction (yes, I am looking at you, Viridae)? I have grown inured to the constant browbeating that comes with being a member of the Arbitration Committee, but this was a new low, unquestionably sexist (you wouldn't have used that image if both arbitrators were male), and a personalised insult that was beyond poor taste. I don't expect an apology, but I do expect you to understand that your unthinking desire to poke fun can have unintended consequences. If we are unsuccessful in attracting qualified women candidates for the Arbitration Committee this year, I will look to this episode as one of the causes. Risker ( talk) 16:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Dammit Fats, if you're gonna troll with Francisco, go with the best. Herewith an exhibition of Spain's finest blockable works of art, with suggested captions. Put 'em on your local Wikicrat's talk page for a Real Fun Time:
Somehow I don't think I could curate an exhibit like this for, say, Georgia O'Keefe. This exhibition will run through November 1 at the ever expanding Museum of Wikipedia Atrocities. I'm resigning. Don't ask me to stay or I'll mess up your talk page again. -- Noroton ( talk) 04:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The article Gail King has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
Proposed Deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Tsange ►
talk 16:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You are an interesting character. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 05:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated OBAMA! ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 10:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Really? That's skirting common courtesy and Wikipedia's civility policies.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 08:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
And I am going to copy the text from the subpage user talk to here (so it will actually be kept somewhere because that page will surely be deleted)— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 08:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC):
- Bambenek has never been notable and never will be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. The only references on this page show that he was a speaker at a workshop, was quoted for two short sentences in the NYTimes, slightly more times in the Washington Post, and appeared on a mock news show where he was used to produce comedic effect. The only way we can catch his sockpuppets (he has edited in the past) is the fact that they come back every few months to request an article be made. This is in its totality a wholly unreferenced BLP with the only instances of references being used to say "Oh, he's notable because he was quoted in three news sources".— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 08:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- "And never will be"?????? That's a very strong (not to mention purely and groundlessly speculative) statement and shows you are incapable of looking at the Bambanek question objectively.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 08:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- We have policies that determine whether or not an article is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (people). John Bambenek does not fulfill its primary criteria which is that "he has [not] been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." He is most certainly not the subject of the workshop, the New York Times article, the Washington Post article, or the Daily Show's Daylight Savings Time sketch. Until he becomes the subject, to be specific the focus, of any sort of publication that fulfills the English Wikipedia's reliable source criteria, then there will never be an article on John Bambenek, John C. Bambenek, John C. A. Bambenek, or any variation thereof.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 08:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Just because you moved the page into your own user space does not mean that it will not still be under MFD.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 15:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
"FMWNCB, I'll unblock your IP in a minute, so that you are free to edit constructively without any potential accusations of block-evasion. I hope you'll reciprocate the good faith with all editors, and not let this unblock turn into egg on my face. Welcome back! Abecedare (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)"
{{gblock|abusing Wikipedia as a battleground|24 hours}}
Tweak Durova et al on your own time.--
Tznkai (
talk) 06:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you need just the citations, or the full texts of the articles? I'm not sure if it's ok or not to post the full texts of newspaper/magazine articles, even in userspace, because they're copyrighted. I could probably email the full text of each to you if that's preferable and list the citations in your userspace for others to see. Cla68 ( talk) 23:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It occurred to me that it would probably help if we had a proper article about the News-Gazette before the Bambenek article can come to be.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 23:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Please either change your username, or never come back to Wikipedia. Otherwise, you are a flagrant liar, sir.
This is a ridiculous statement, of course. But so is your request that I change my signature - that I was using for two years before Shankbone ever registered his account. DS ( talk) 19:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you could easily graph the rapid increase in stupidity over the holidays on Wikipedia. Thank God tomorrow is Monday. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 21:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you Artie Lange? -- Andy Walsh (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Would you consider standing for adminship? GTD 00:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
... while the commentary on WR is often illuminating, and always humorous, the brain power over there is sadly missing recently. No commentary on them, but WR seems to be dying as much as Wiki is, and the commentary over there lately often completely misses the point or is just blatantly wrong ... it didn't used to be like that :) It used to be a place where some of the more insightful posters really got to the bottom of important issues; instead, these days, it's become a place where everyone and their brother weighs in with uninformed commentary on everything including the kitchen sink, and air dirty laundry or visit grievances and carry grudges while completely missing important issues. In other words, it's the internet, where anyone can say anything, even if they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground. And I can't imagine the usefulness in engaging misinfo on *two* places at once, where the readers of one site are as obsessed as the readers they criticize on the other ! EveryKing is always entertaining, though :) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Snooki, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snooki. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Barnstars from FTMWNCB to David Shankbome, a barnstar that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this barnstar satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TFMWNCB is a butterfly. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the AWARD to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
If you need, you can contact me if unsure why you received this message; however I am a robot and as such dont give one flying fuck. Ceoil ―Œ(talk) 15:96, 73 February 1821 (UTC)
. . . on your elevation to your new position! Do you need a new avatar?
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, now we are related... Grapebowl ( talk) 13:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Please don't remove a legitimate tag on a problematic question. the tag is there to keep responses from straying into arguments or original research on a topic where people will likely be inclined to do so. thanks. -- Ludwigs2 18:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't vandalize like you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or you will be blocked from editing. VoteJagoffForMayor ( talk) 03:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe YOU will be blocked becos i am like rubber u r like glue if u say things to me they bounce off me and stick to u.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 03:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. Nakon 03:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's the official vid. How is Moni doing these days? Did she quit (if so, I'd take it with a grain of salt; no one ever really quits)? I always liked that oddball.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 16:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I've reduced the indefinite block to 48 hours. When the block expires, please refrain from
disruptively editing the project. Thanks,
Nakon 04:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
hello i am the fat man who never came back. blocks are preventative not punitive. so like i was blocked for say some rude things at AN/I like call ppl a "douche" (LOL) and things like this. but i wish to be unblock because i would like to do the REFERENCE DESK ONLY and maybe make some minor edit to sports articles. i will not say things at AN/I because i don't like those ppl anyway. because i promise not do say these rude things at AN/I, there is nothing to prevent. ALSO WE CAN MAKE A DEAL if i say more rude things at AN/I in the next 48 hrs you can block me for 9999999999999999999999 hours, but for now i just need to respond to some comments that ppl made to me at the REFERENCE DESK. ok thx
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi jpgordon. first of all, as i have expressed to you many times in the past, i have a deep respect for you--not necessarily as a Wikipedia editor (i thought you were a lousy arbitrator)--but as a musician, a human being, and a MAN. i would like to remind everyone that you played horns in Oingo Boingo many years ago and that you ride a horse and that you have a beard and things of this nature. Now that pleasantries have been exchanged, I must say that I don't particularly understand your response to my block request. whether my edits would be "any potential benefit to Wikiedia" is entirely irrelevant. The duration of my block is only slated to be 48 hours long--if you truly believed my edits to be worthless to the project, would they not be just as worthless when the block expired as they would be if you unblocked me immediately? So the issue isn't really whether my presence "benefits" this silly website; the issue is whether I should be allowed to resume editing NOW or LATER.
The question is WHY must I be allowed to edit posthaste rather than, as the drooling imbecile below instructs me, to "wait it out." Quite simply, there are URGENT questions on the Reference Desk that require my immediate attention. If I don't attend to them now, I fear that lesser, misguided and occasionally malicious editors will respond to these questions and give people the WRONG ANSWER. This may be hard for you to believe, but I could barely sleep last night worrying about the tidal wave of misinformation that has engulfed the Miscellaneous and Humanities sections of the Reference Desk since I was blocked. I need to help those poor people NOW. The reason I was blocked had nothing to do with my sterling and award-winning assistance at the Reference Desk; I was blocked for my naughty (but, in my view, entirely warranted) behavior at AN/I. I have already given you my word that I do not plan to mix it up at the MORONIC incidents board (for at least a couple weeks) but want only to assist my fellow man and impart my wisdom and knowledge at the Reference Desk as well as make minor edits to articles with mistakes them. It is URGENT. Also, I am free all day today (Tuesday), but tomorrow I have plans to go out for pizza and to clean my house and after that I have houseguests, so I won't have much time to edit Wikipedia if I wait for my block to expire. Now that I have explained myself, I expect you to clarify your response to my unblock request as well. Please unblock me immediately. Regards, TFM.
Decline reason:
Regardless of any other circumstances, I've reinstated your block to indefinite based on your totally unjustified rant below Jac16888 Talk 15:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Okay how about this... you shorten my block to a week or so (my houseguests will be gone by then), I issue a grudging apology to "HalfShadow" and we call it even.
Decline reason:
No evidence that should you be unblocked your disruptive behaviour will stop. Judging from your behaviour on this talk page there is every indication that it will continue. We don't unblock users because they "grudgingly" apologise: this isn't some sort of trade. You are expected to apologise (and not even have cause to have to do so in the first place) without the incentive of an unblock. Clearly you are not currently able to edit in a collaborative environment Kingpin 13 ( talk) 16:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
What do you think, Fat Man? Should the redlink be blue? Regards. Kablammo ( talk) 16:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, lookatthat! We now have Jester's privilege redirecting to Jester's privelege: Use English. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I came here to block this account for misusing an alternative account but I see that you've been blocked already. Last September, when I ran the check on the trolling account and saw that it was you, I asked you to link to this account. You refused to do so, saying that you would not return to this account because of concerns related to privacy. I let the matter drop then out of respect for the concern about privacy. Now I see you have returned to editing with this account and are trolling again.
In order for the Community to make a well thought out judgment about your conduct, all of the information needs to be brought forward to the community. So, I plan to link to your trolling account unless you give me a specific reason within policy that it would be a privacy violation to do so. I've looked through the edits of all of your accounts and those made by you logged out, and I see nothing that should prevent me from linking them. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 17:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
You have some reasonable contributions in the past. I don't know at this point whether you seriously want or expect to be unblocked or not. I think that if you step back and reread everything you've posted over the past couple of days you will agree that it has all been puerile, unhelpful to building an encyclopedia or a community, and perhaps worst of all from your point of view, not even especially amusing.
For the benefit of anyone who might need to look at an unblock request at some point: do you seriously want to contribute to Wikipedia in a sensible way again sometime, or are you just basically making a de facto retirement announcement in a characteristically idiosyncratic fashion? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
TFM, you naughty wittle boy ... your antics have seriously compromised the Project. I'd like to see these installed for every editor who has them. Fair is fair. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I never once abused them, nor was I accused of doing so.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 19:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
TFM, you've got to be aware that you have some people on Wiki who are going to be looking at anything you do for issues. I think your intentions to avoid ANI are a good direction. Gimmetoo ( talk) 08:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
You know how to behave appropriately, and you know how to behave inappropriately. From this point forward, appropriately would be better. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad is absolutely right. You do know how to behave. From this point on we expect the maturity and seriousness demanded by this fine encyclopedic project and its superb administrative team. And no damn backsass, young man. __ WC XXXIII ( talk) 19:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Most people prefer early Dylan and Cypress Hill's first album to their later stuff.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 15:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope someone renames your account to The Fat Man Who Will Never Come Back. lolollolololloololol
TFM, if TS wanted to make a fuss about [8], there are admins who would have blocked you for it. I'm assuming from TS's revert that this isn't just some sort of in-joke between you two. You also said you would stay away from ANI [9]. Come on, man. Gimmetoo ( talk) 12:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is someone wanking on one of *my* articles? Happy Turkey Day, Butterball !! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Dude wants a mentor; get out of your post-tryptophan haze and help a fellow in need. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Eagles
24/7
(C) 22:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Look the AN/I edit a while back was trolling, we are willing to unblock you if you decide to stop with the behavior. A little humor or Wikipedia Review posts are fine, but attacks and sockpuppetry? Dude, you have alot of supporters but you have to chill with the behavior, as some people don't like it, considering all your indef blocks. What do you say? Secret account 00:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. This is going to make the work we were going to do on WikiProject Anti-fat bias very difficult. -- Andy Walsh (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thx-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 22:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
uh....... oops?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 23:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
What you need to do to be unblocked is to show Wikipedia and the other people who edit it a level of respect and decorum that you have heretofore not shown it. You're interactions with people in general show that you do not hold this project, or the people that work on it, any respect. If you believed this project to be worthwhile, you would communicate with the other people here with a level of discourse befitting it. That you do not, and indeed, that you continue to exhibit the same sort of immature behavior that got your other account, Bad edits r dumb, blocked shows that you are only hanging around here to screw with other people and see how many people you can upset and get riled up. This is the textbook definition of trolling. If you wish to be allowed to edit Wikipedia, you will begin to exhibit behavior that shows you intend to treat it seriously. -- Jayron 32 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Using a combination of twinkle and the rollback function.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 23:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
THANK YOU FOR HELPING MY BROTHER. HE IS NONE TOO BRIGHT AND I AM GLAD U HELP HIM. NOW WE ARE FRIENDS :-D-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 00:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you want me to ask for semi-protection for your user page, in order to keep the riff-raff [12] away from it? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
At The Fat Man...'s request, and with the (reluctant) consent of the blocking administrator, I have reenabled his ability to edit this talkpage. I hope that I will not wind up being sorry I have done this. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I wish to be unblocked under the following proviso: will ONLY edit AN/I and my talk page. I wish to respond to some of the misconceptions and untruths currently being circulated in that venue. Until the AN/I thread is "resolved" (either by the community demonstrating consensus to ban me, or by agreeing to allow me to edit once i promise to be a good man), I will only edit in those two places. I won't call anyone "douche" or "dum" or "dumb" but I will defend myself admirably if I am being lied about. If I do not follow this proviso, I understand I will be reblocked. Cheers, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Given how you've behaved in the thread below, I can only think you're unwilling to stop taunting/trolling other editors and hence, that seems to be mostly what you want to do here. If you carry on with this here on your talk page, you'll be locked out of it again, too. Owing to your behaviour, another admin has again locked you out from editing this talk page.
Gwen Gale (
talk) 04:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
How many second chances have we given you? access_denied ( talk) 02:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
so.... like I can't have a laff with me mates? EVER EVER EVER? Strictly business? like, ALL THE TIME?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 03:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Send me one more abusive e-mail, and I will lock your e-mail privileges. Do not, for any purpose, ever e-mail me again. Courcelles 00:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The text of off-wiki communications such as e-mails should not be posted on-wiki without the author's permission, except perhaps in very limited and extraordinary circumstances. Given Courcelles' record on the project, I think we can accept as a fact his statement that he received an e-mail from The Fat Man... and that he found its contents inappropriate, although we are not in a position to evaluate precisely how troubling they might have been. For the record, I have received two e-mails from The Fat Man... in the past two days, and their contents were civil and reasonable, quite different in tone from most of what he has written on this page. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
To TFM: Regarding the 2 short emails you sent me: No. I made no mistake. If you want the status quo changed, please contact the Arbitration committee using the instructions located at WP:BASC. The discussion at WP:ANI generated no consensus to overturn the current situation, so your best option is to convince the arbitration committee of the wisdom of doing so.-- Jayron 32 21:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Four hours ago I received the following e-mail by you, which I am reproducing here in its entirety, as per the rules concerning e-mail on my user page:
I do not know what action by me you refer to, but I believe that I have not ever said anything about you except for brief comments in the recent noticeboard threads concerning your conduct. Such e-mails are unconstructive, and in view of the discussion above, if you continue to send similar e-mails to me, I will remove your ability to do so. Sandstein 07:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Fat Man-- thank you for e-mailing me (my first ever from you!) and confirming the two IPs were you.
Your holiday wishes apparently annoyed folks so I won't repost them here, at least. I do not understand what removal of your messages accomplishes, but I will not otherwise characterize them here, as that would not be in keeping with the spirit of the season and your message.
But I for one thank you for your many content edits, your work on an FA, your application of BLP principles, and other contributions to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is poorer without you, but was enriched by your presence while you were here.
Best wishes, Kablammo ( talk) 00:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Roger Alan Wade has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?) 10:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roger Alan Wade is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Alan Wade until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ass cancer. Since you had some involvement with the Ass cancer redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 19:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect OBAMA!. Since you had some involvement with the OBAMA! redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - The ChampionMan 1234 23:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect OBAMA!. Since you had some involvement with the OBAMA! redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Nevé – selbert 19:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ass cancer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ass cancer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 22:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Macaca (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 16:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pool's closed due to AIDS. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 4#Pool's closed due to AIDS until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 14:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)