User talk:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

	Archives
	May 2006-Dec 2008 (my classic, very long talk page); Dec 2008-Mar 2009; Mar 2009; Apr 2009-Jun 2009;

TFMWNCB

INDEFINITELY

Young lady

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

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

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

hmmmmmmm ...

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

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

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

Adoption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spill the beans

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

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

Block

{{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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goya vey! Masterpieces of Wikipedia: An Exhibition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed deletion of Gail King

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

notability and no references

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAC review from content expert needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting

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

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

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

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

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

RfD nomination of OBAMA!

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

Bambenek

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

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

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

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

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):[reply]

Bambenek has never been notable and never will be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. The only references on this page show that he was a speaker at a workshop, was quoted for two short sentences in the NYTimes, slightly more times in the Washington Post, and appeared on a mock news show where he was used to produce comedic effect. The only way we can catch his sockpuppets (he has edited in the past) is the fact that they come back every few months to request an article be made. This is in its totality a wholly unreferenced BLP with the only instances of references being used to say "Oh, he's notable because he was quoted in three news sources".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
"And never will be"?????? That's a very strong (not to mention purely and groundlessly speculative) statement and shows you are incapable of looking at the Bambanek question objectively.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
We have policies that determine whether or not an article is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (people). John Bambenek does not fulfill its primary criteria which is that "he has [not] been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." He is most certainly not the subject of the workshop, the New York Times article, the Washington Post article, or the Daily Show's Daylight Savings Time sketch. Until he becomes the subject, to be specific the focus, of any sort of publication that fulfills the English Wikipedia's reliable source criteria, then there will never be an article on John Bambenek, John C. Bambenek, John C. A. Bambenek, or any variation thereof.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Just a quack reminder

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

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

{{gblock|abusing Wikipedia as a battleground|24 hours}} Tweak Durova et al on your own time.--Tznkai (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Bambenek sources

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

Usernames

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

Query

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

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

RFA?

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

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

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

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

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

Because ...

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

Articles for deletion nomination of Snooki

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

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

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

Barnstars for deletion The Fat man to David Shankbone

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulations

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

You are now a Reviewer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reference desk tag

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

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

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

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)[reply]

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

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

Blocked

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

Nakon 03:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You naughty boy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to be bad, honest. I was just putting in a few hours at the Reference Desk the other day when I noticed all the commotion at AN/I about Rlevse and his antics. I keep telling myself I don't care about the "project" anymore but every time I see discussions AN/I degenerating into proverbial pigfucks, I feel they're calling my name, like Tom Joad. SOMEONE needs to show up and berate the participants.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've passed my berating quota for the month, but I did just post a query at ANI about your block, which you answered yourself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I suppose I am now at the mercy of the "douches" I was blocked for insulting. I do appreciate the gesture, though. And you really are doing good work with this plagiarism stuff. Although I am disenchanted with the editing experience, I still read Wikipedia articles every day, and you're one of the reasons they do not entirely suck.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help: I was trying to send "They don't love you like I love you" to Moni3 (talk · contribs), and it's nowhere to be found on Youtube. The poor adorable dear has given up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Block reduced

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

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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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:

I don't see any potential benefit to Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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)[reply]

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.

I suppose it was a rant, but it was hardly unjustified. HalfShadow is the worst type of AN/I hanger-on; I don't think calling a spade a douche is particularly controversial. And how does blocking me indefinitely advance the interests of the Reference Desk or address the concerns I have laid out in my response to jpgordon?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're lucky you're getting back in at all. Wait it out. HalfShadow 18:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

who the FUCK are you, "HalfShadow" and where do you get the termerity to even ADDRESS The Fat Man Who Never Came Back!!!! this issue is between TFM, the blocking admin and the great jpgordon, whom i deeply respect because who once played horns for Oingo Boingo. NO ONE'S TALKING TO YOU and i bet YOU NEVER PLAYED HORNS IN ANY BAND I'VE EVER HEARD OF!!!!!!!!!! I bet you're one of those wannabe admin DOUCHES who hangs around AN/I ALL DAY hoping to curry favor with the other DOUCHES who mill about AN/I!!!!! i'm deeply insulted by the crass presumption that i am somehow "lucky" i'm not being indefinitely blocked. you are apparently unaware that my services ARE REQUIRED AT THE REFERENCE DESK and that I am doing the COMMUNITY a FAVOR by even bothering to show up to this stupid website. Editing "Wikipedia" is not some great privilege--it's some sort of social disease. You EVER show up anywhere NEAR my talk again (this also means the talk page of any of my brothers or family members), and you and I are going to have words.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's cute. You gonna type mean things at me until one of us cries? HalfShadow 18:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're a wee bit out of your weight class right now, my young friend.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...says the guy who's indef-blocked. Next you'll be threatening to sit on me, right? HalfShadow 19:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "guy who's indef-blocked" at least knows how to thread posts; please move along now and stop poking a blocked user. For the strangest of reasons, I suspect NYB and Flonight are capable of handling this, and will do so with some respect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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 Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This is deeply hurtful to my feelings. i am certainly ABLE to edit in a collaborative environment and happily did so for very years. I already promised to leave AN/I alone and to focus on the RefDesk and making minor edits to articles. what else do you need? how about this? if AN/I douches, against all wisdom, appear on my talk page, I will greet them with candy & kazoos, and I will shower them with kisses.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TFMWNCB, Please do realise that this is an indefinite block firstly with respect to your statements (above) and secondly with respect to other circumstances, disruptive editing inclusive. This is not a conditional give and take; civility is a non-negotiable pillar of Wikipedia. For a start, you will have to start providing evidence that you understand the exact reasons for which you've been indefinitely blocked and that you unconditionally are ready to rescind your behaviour and statements. In case - as per the evidence/arguments you provide to this effect - you believe that your deportment seems conducive to the benefit of the project and to its editors, re-apply again for an unblock. Please do note - in case you re-exhibit incivility on your talk page, even your talk page editing privileges could be withdrawn. Regards. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 16:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's the block of DEATH.... indef/can't edit your talk page/can't email. PLEASE DON'T DO THIS TO ME; I WILL LOSE MY MIND.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

civility is a non-negotiable pillar of Wikipedia ... Somebody's not paying attention :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Times THREE: start providing evidence that you understand the exact reasons for which you've been indefinitely blocked ... and in case you re-exhibit incivility on your talk page, even your talk page editing privileges could be withdrawn. Civility on Wiki is negotiable, and talk page editing privileges are not withdrawn for editors who don't evidence they understand the reasons they were indeff'd. And for the humor-deprived, TFM clearly understands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Times FOUR: 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. Where do they come up with this stuff? Are they completely unaware of other cases? Other editors are unblocked without apologizing, and are free to continue the very behavior which led to the block. And admins don't have to apologize, even when they misuse the tools, blatantly, more than once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is "not being an AN/I douche" a "pillar" as well? Probably not.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leave my vinegar and water out of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Dear TFMWNCB, there's a vast space between the perception that the word "unhelpful" purports, and one that the word "uncivil" forwards. You believe your posts were simply "unhelpful"; yet, you have been repeatedly blocked by administrators who believe to the extreme otherwise. You refuse to identify with the reasons for which you have been blocked. Minutes after being warned, you posted, "If AN/I douches, against all wisdom, appear on my talk page, I will greet them with candy & kazoos, and I will shower them with kisses." While humour is respected and appreciated in pertinent contexts, it would be of large disadvantage currently; at the danger of being misplaced, your attempts at slanted humour would ensure your talk page editing privilege is blocked now, unless you provide reasons otherwise. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 18:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean I'm in trouble?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This means that you need to become a proactive proponent of civil communication. And an en-strengthened statement, perchance a promise, to this effect and to the premise that you will adhere to this in the future, would go some distance in furthering your case for an early unblock. And obviously, an immediate stoppage to your untimely and superlatively capricious humour would help your case much. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 18:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a peculiar way of speaking. Are you, like, Vulcan or something?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<groan> Since when does humor on one's talk page, not directed at any particular individual, have anything to do with "civility", when admins can call us all "wankers" at ANI?[2] [3] Please, Wifione, your posts aren't evidencing any logic, and are beginning to look like poking a blocked user. Your "job" is done here; let others deal with it. Also, if you have time, could you take a look at WP:SIG, please? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has poking fun at people who are mentally handicapped been "humour"? You have an incredibly disturbing notion of what is and is not amusing. I'm not sure what TFMWNCB meant with that post, but I'm fairly sure that they are not incapable of using correct grammar, and therefore have not suffered brain damage as they claimed. Those kind of comments are disgusting, and I find your response to it (brushing it of as humour) equally so. Civility still applies on user talk pages, and using the actions of others to justify your own (or The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's) actions is not acceptable. However, please point me to these admins who have been calling users "wankers", I may need to have a word with them. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wifione is mentally handicapped?????????? I thought him a bit peculiar, but certainly not disabled. Tell him I'm sorry about that, then.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why, Kingpin (13?), good things come to those who pay attention! We all know if I pointed you to that admin, the chances of me being blocked in retaliation would go up exponentially! And if you think TFM makes fun of handicapped people, you obviously weren't part of a certain Arb case, and don't know diddly about TFM. Get your humor-on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@The Fat Man Who Never Came Back I'm talking about an older comment, from yesterday, not saying that you are treating Wifione like they are mentally handicapped. @Sandy So you complain about admin abuse, and us not dealing with it, but then don't allow us to do so because you won't even point to any abuse? Besides, as I mentioned it's irrelevant. You can't just defend every single user with ~"but admins can call us wankers all the time", especially when you now seem to be talking about one specific case (before you seemed to be accusing all admins of this kind of behaviour), and can't even point me to it. As to humour, I'm sorry, but this isn't funny, even with humour on as far as it'll go... If I'm missing something, then please point it out, but I don't get how you can find that amusing. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try harder to entertain you next time. You should be a judge on Last Comic Standing? Is this funny?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to be entertained by you, and no I shouldn't be. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pin, there's a theatre saying, "If it can't be good, it better be funny". If you come here, you should aim for one or the other, since TFM hits both.[4] [5] [6] His article needs work if you're looking for something to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I being lectured? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jester's privilege

What do you think, Fat Man? Should the redlink be blue? Regards. Kablammo (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely!! Trouble is that years of Internet and Wikipedia have essentially made me illiterate and incapable of writing or research. I wouldn't know how to begin exploring the subject except to, you know, Google it and look it up on Wikipedia. However, my brother, a historian, says there are still libraries, and I even know a couple people who have been to one recently.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only if SandySucks (talk · contribs) talk turns ~~red~~ blue (where is Shankbone when 'ya need him?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David seems to be doing well. He's my facebook friend, but he never talks to me. Anyhow, I'm in a Dostoevsky mood and I like to think of myself more as a holy fool than a jester per se. I have been "touched" by the almighty, which explains my erratic behavior. Since I am no longer allowed to edit, would one of you be a dear and put this painting on my user page. I just hope you don't get blocked for proxying for a banned user.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just hope it's properly licensed ... seems to be, but I don't want to trouble our highly overworked ElCobbola. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias. So you never answered my question about whats-her-name....--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's pretty well given up in disgust at the governance here, and with ample reason. But she's still around watching her articles-- we've just lost another brilliant FA writer. E-mail her (do they still allow you to do that?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope she's not stressing about this place in her downtime. Even if they revoke my email privileges, I'm sure I have her addy in my email somewhere. I will send her a Christmas card.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do have Narrenfreiheit (I mean, we have the article, obviously we don't have the principle). ---Sluzzelin talk 17:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AWESOME! These cats at the reference desk really know what's up. Could one of my meatpuppets redirect Kablammo's redlink to the "article," such as it is?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did so, begrudgingly, because SandySucks still isn't ... sucking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See what collaboration can accomplish? A contender for redirect of the week! And on a subject outside the ken of most Wikipedians! Although, to be honest, you were a "bad wittle boy", like the little fella in the picture, maybe.

Perhaps if you hang one of these doohickeys on your page, you will be lauded, showered with honors, and asked to return! Regards, Kablammo (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So true. Those placards are corny, but oh so much more romantic than one of these.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I salvaged your article, but I didn't fix the redirect because ... ummmm ... I don't know how to get all that back to the English article. I think we need a member of the upper-caste for that; maybe they can go build some encyclopedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? What "little fellow" in what picture? That cherub at the top of the page is ME, and it's All About Me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No no no, Scarlett. I meant the sullen little dude in the suit-- I thought he hung around here, but I see he's wandered off to the Anteroom of Hell. Kablammo (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that little fellow. He was just pouting 'cuz I spanked him; I may have to do so again so the level of discourse on this page will attain previous heights. It's slipppppping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lookatthat! We now have Jester's privilege redirecting to Jester's privelege: Use English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block for misuse of an alternative account

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)[reply]

LOL, at this point, my other account (currently blocked) is not exactly a secret.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope everyone involved in examining TFM's contribs will apply the same standard to another socking indeff'd editor whose talk page access was restored, where the behaviors continued. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! don't put me in the same category. I was never socking.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that your answer to me was made so you could continue editing with this account after you trolled and wasted the time of the community last September. [7]. I took seriously your comment that you had privacy concerns, and that you intended to return to editing with a new account that made good edits. If it was solely up to me I would indefinitely block your account because your minimal contributions are overshadowed by the disruptive edits you make. But now everyone can see the value of the contributions of all your accounts, and the community can decide whether an indefinite block is in order. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 18:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I love that the trope of "wasting the community's time" is alive and well. As if the members of the "community" don't actively choose to involve themselves in this nonsense. This is precisely what makes the AN/I denizens such douches; they crave conflict and thrive on it, and the children that you people (not you, personally; but the AN/I folks) warn, the vandals you lecture and the trolls you block are giving you people what you could not abide without. But that's besides the point. I meant what I said in September, but I've observed that people who retire from the project (even for "privacy" reasons--and I could give you quite a few examples) frequently change their minds once whatever they were trying to keep private is out of the bag; I am no exception. I have a sentimental attachment to this particular account and would like to continue to use it it for my "minimal contributions" but if I am to remain blocked, I don't think anyone will really suffer. I do hope, however, that my future accounts I might wish to create won't be blocked simply because someone figures out that they are me (in the absence of any trademarked "disurptive" behavior, of course).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for the Fat Man Who Never Came Back

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)[reply]

I would like to edit the Reference Desk and will continue to do so, whether I am ostensibly blocked or not. It would probably be best if I left the "debate" and "discussion" sections of Wikipedia alone, but it would be nice to vote in the ArbCom elections. I'll probably continue to do minor fixes to sports articles and the like.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I take issue with the "it has all been puerile, unhelpful.. etc" characterization. I would say MOST of it has been unhelpful, but I have made some innocuous contributions as well.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it nice when you are spoken to with respect, so you can respond in kind? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comments to him last September WERE respectful. He abused that respect with the all his carrying on then and now. And I take very serious claims of problems with privacy because I don't want to cause problems with employers or schools. So, when I see this claim falsely made, I don't appreciate it at all. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 18:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about you, Flo-- some of the comments in the sections above show a distinct lack of clue-- I have no recollection of your conversations last September. In fact, I was referring quite specifically, as well, to the way an admin who recently improperly used tools on me spoke to me, after a polite inquiry, and to the issue of a double standard with another editor who has talk page access to continue maligning me, dragging up months-old history, repeating cabalism charges that led to original arb findings, and denying CU-documented socks on her very talk page where a CU responded that they were her socks. We don't see anything this disruptive from TFM. You might also recall that there have been three cases before the arbs where editors were allowed to malign me for a very long time, or were unblocked with standing attacks on me on their talk page, hence, my sensitivity to the matter and the double standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can this fairly be described as a "three ring circus"?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's His Corpulence's "trademarked disurptive behavior, of course". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have my rollback and reviewer privileges reinstated?

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)[reply]

True. I've restored rollback, at least until someone who thinks you are not suitably remorseful removes it again (which could technically be considered wheel warring, but there's kind of a get-out-of-jail-free card waiting for them at the top of my talk page). I hope this brightened your day a little. I didn't restore reviewer because (a) I don't fully understand what it does, so I generally stay away from it; (b) Unlike rollback (which you could conceivably use here on your talk page), you can't use it in your current condition; and (c) I am a powerful admin, and thus I can grant or not grant your requests on a whim. Perhaps if you amuse us some more... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like that (I'm a reviewer and I still don't know how it works!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!!!! I am going to wreak all kinds of havoc with this rollback tool. I don't recognize your name, but I already like you (slightly) better than the other admin named Flo. And I don't know what "reviewer" does either but I, like most Wikipedian douches, strive to collect as many titles as possible; they are the sole determinants of my self-worth.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2

Nakon blocked TFM for 48 hours for disruption. That block would have expired 04:07, 10 November, so it doesn't need more discussion.
Jac16888 blocked TFM indef for incivility at 15:11, 9 November 2010, apparently while reviewing an unblock request from TFM for Nakon's block. This block was questioned at 16:37, 9 November, and still has no reply. Jac16888 made edits circa 01:00 and and 09:30 10 November, so had the opportunity.
After > 24 hours waiting for a reply, during which the blocking admin edited, TFM was unblocked at 23:08, 10 November. These civility issues should not have led to an indef. In any event, at this point whatever civility issues were there can be viewed as handled with "time served". TFM's other account remains blocked per FloNight. TFM wanted to work at the ref desk, so carry on with this account. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Mr. Pin is unhappy (There's Only One King, TOOKie, tookie). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment

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)[reply]

Be good now, Your Corpulence, or I won't send you a Christmas card. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose next time he misbehaves, Arbcom consider something like this as the appropriate sanction. I'm sure I speak for pretty much everyone, when I say I'd take that far more seriously than the usual "admins admonished, non-admins blocked" piffle. – iridescent 17:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom has had nothing to do with these blocks. (The fact that I've made a couple of comments and I'm on the committee is neither here nor there.) I think that this is going to be headed in the direction of a community ban at some if The Fat Man Who Never Came Back continues to edit in the spirit he's shown the past few days, whether you or I like or not, and that rather than anything else is the sort of "piffle" whose necessity I am trying to head off here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think the point is precisely what someone mentioned the other day on AN/I when someone thought that this account may be compromised: The Fat Man used to be much funnier than he has been lately. Come on, Fat Man, if you're going to troll us, at least make us laugh. Tex (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I much prefered his earlier, funny, stuff. Calling the people on AN/I twats is not trolling, its saying what is. Its a troll only in that it show what a bubble this is, arbs, admins and all. Ceoil (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Most people like Lady Ga ga and pictures of large oversized plastic breasts. Most people suck. Still, there is a feeling you have somehow sold out. Ceoil (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you do end up getting permabanned

I hope someone renames your account to The Fat Man Who Will Never Come Back. lolollolololloololol

UR DUM.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note 3

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)[reply]

Whodunnit

Why is someone wanking on one of *my* articles? Happy Turkey Day, Butterball !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

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)[reply]

ANI Notice

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)[reply]

December 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for trolling and disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{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)[reply]

Fat Man, I see you have now been deemed to be a "manupilative [sic] and clever little prick",[10] which apparently passes as acceptable discourse amongst the civility police.

This epithet is felt to be benign while a good-humoured smiley-accompanied "u r dum", taken in equally good humour by the recipient, is felt to be more heinous.

Why do so many admins try so hard to prove your point? Kablammo (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BYW, Fat Man, one of the participants at AN/I says that while calling someone "dum" is a blockable offence, use of "metaphorical comments about body parts" (such as the gem quoted above) does not descend to that level.[11] Since one of your blocks was for accusing unnamed members of a group of occasional "douchebaggery"-- a metaphorical comment which was neither personal nor about a body part, will that block now be expunged from the record? Kablammo (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

so wut do i need to do to become unblock

thx--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to point out that my brother asked a question on the reference desk, and I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION BECAUSE I STUDYED LINGUISTICS AS A YOUNG MAN. so if u would pls unblock me i will help him and things like this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post the diff here and we'll see what we can do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U r d**b.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you didn't study spelling. :) I literally don't care what you call me, no matter how vile or absurd it is. I didn't see anything on the language ref desk that looked relevant, so I assume that was just another of your jokes. Which raises a question: How could anyone possibly know when you're not trying to be funny? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MY BROTHER HE AKS A QUESTION ABT "DAMN" vs "DAM". u r so d**n d**b.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that would be this one. I've asked the editor for confirmation on the sibling situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please get a hold of yourself. I'm beginning to question my support for an unblock.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

uh....... oops?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is write in a civilized manner. Pretending to be a child is not very funny.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:-( --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Jayron32 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok thx, that is wut i will do.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to roll back the vandals.

Using a combination of twinkle and the rollback function.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A MESSAGE TO BASEBALL BUGS

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)[reply]

You bet. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Um, I was the one who reverted that and I don't see a single revert on your user page by Baseball Bugs. What are you talking about? Usb10 ^Connected? 01:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's referring to a question on the language ref desk, and meanwhile I offered to request semi-protection for the page (trying to do good deeds). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage access

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)[reply]

hi pls unblock me, with restrictions

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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)[reply]

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.

On hold pending discussion. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

How many second chances have we given you? access_denied (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "we" I assume you mean the "COMMUNITY," am i right? Or are you a representative of some other entity?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know you're not joking? That's a fair question. Yesterday, everything you said was a joke. What's different today? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I DID???--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember this???? How do we know you won't go straight to HalfShadow's talk page the second we unblock you? access_denied (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When have I EVER gone to this troubled young man's talk page? Any verbal abuse heaped upon the poor soul was issued right here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this. PS: We've all heard the brother defense a billion times. access_denied (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, that was a legitimate alternate account. I've never been into "socking" which is using multiple accounts to mislead people or manipulate voting or discussion. Several checkusers knew Bad edits r Dumb was me at the time I was editing under that name, and I was not blocked for abusing multiple accounts; I was blocked for making silly comments and refusing to speak in standard English (read the talk page history; it's all remarkably silly). Do me a favor and run along, both you and "Baseball Bugs". Don't come back until an admin shows up to review my unblock request. thx.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Troubled young man"? You're asking to be unblocked, and you're making personal attacks? Or is that another "joke"? How can anyone tell when you're not joking? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I am now taking this page off my watch list. And that's no joke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid idea.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non special people can tell when he's not joking. It takes a, well, special brew of arrogant, pompus rule driven stupidity to miss the point. Have ye gone past contribs cherry picked for the lynching on tuesday? Go further back. The troll is on you, the self righteous pricks whining on AN/I, and not the site. Ye deserve it, and good luck with for the extent that it gets yer wiki politicing careers. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HI PAUL! I'm really in a pickle this time. Do you any places that deliver mission-style burritos to Prospect Lefferts Gardens?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email them to me Nigel, and I'll post on arb-talk. I'll slip them in all round as well, minor edits. Lols Ceoil (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assent to your plan! (but in reality I'm totally confused)--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the retract button for calling BB a prick? All he has added to the ency, doesn't deserve that. Ceoil (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prick is okay. "Douche" is not. And "dumb"? Well, that's the stuff bans are made of. I learned this the HARD way. I died so that ye may live.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFM, I would possibly assent to an unblock with the exact opposite proviso you have provided; that you are restricted to article edits only, excepting in cases where some other issue concerns you directly, such as being a named party to a complaint at a noticeboard. The problem has not been with your content editing, the problem has always been with your disruptive trolling on talk pages and noticeboards. If you could agree to avoid interacting with anyone else, except in cases of directly discussing article content, and then only at a level of maturity you are expected to follow, I would support an unblock. The issue is not your article work, its your interactions with others. If we could reduce the trolling, we would welcoming your article work back again. If you could agree to this principle in general, I would draw up a more formal list of conditions on your unblock, and take it to the noticeboards to see what happens. --Jayron32 02:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jayron3, you compleatly, utterly, heroically miss the point. You are in a bubble, but well done anyway. Ceoil (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFM, you said you would avoid ANI before. Except, I suppose, responding to ANI threads about you, do you still agree to that? Having a laff with ye mates on their talk pages is one thing, but you get along with ANI somewhat worse than oil with water. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been abiding that restriction! I showed up on AN/I to sow seeds of lulz and destruction ONLY WHEN Eagles 24-7 started that ridiculous discussion about me for calling someone "dumb".--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, except for one bit back on 19 November, you were avoiding ANI. Will you continue avoiding ANI? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ABSOLUUUUUUUUUUUTELY. except if they say false and mean things about TFMWNCB.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, TFM, you can't have a laugh with your mates. The problem is that you don't seem to have a sense of your mates as being distinctly different from other people at Wikipedia who aren't amused by you. Let me ask you again, do you agree in general principle to a set of restrictions that would limit you to working on article content only as a means to being unblocked? --Jayron32 03:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you and Gimmetoo need to get on the same page. Srsly.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest for editing restrictions to mollify some of those who oppose you? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No AN/I. No "douche". No calling people "Dumb."--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No AN/I seems obvious. Are you really proposing a blacklist of words, starting with "douche"? Amusing as the concept is, I don't think it will help. But the third might be good if generalized. No calling people insulting terms, perhaps? I think you are capable of illustrating wiki-dysfunction without resorting to insulting people. Are you? Gimmetoo (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awwww.......... geeee. but i can still call them names behind their back on Wikipedia Review and Facebook? Then I accept this clause!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like your TP is locked again. You've shown you can email arbcom; you can also email me to try to work this out. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am going to ask a third time, and then I am going to wash my hands of this and stop trying to find a way to get you unblocked. Do you, or do you not, agree in principle to being allowed to edit under a set of restrictions which will basically mean you work on article content only? If so, please indicate without equivocation or sidetracking the discussion how you feel about this. If you cannot answer this simple question in clear manner, I'm not even going to go through the effort anymore. --Jayron32 04:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do I know you?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aparently not. If you wish to be unblocked, please contact arbcom as described at WP:BASC. Vaya con dios. --Jayron32 05:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your email

The Fat Man Who Never Came Back, I got your email. The pith is, what you call your "rude and silly comments" have been taken by many editors as trolling, a kind of vandalism, which is blockable. Many admins have looked at this, many have acted on it, many editors have talked about it a great length. If there was not consensus for your block, you would not still be blocked, likewise the locking of your talk page (and unlocking has already been tried, with a sad outcome). It's hard to get blocked for civility breaches on en.WP. It's even harder to get blocked for civility breaches on your own talk page, yet you've gotten this done all too handily. This should be more than a wee hint that your behaviour has been wholly disruptive and nettlesome to many editors, highly wasteful of their volunteer time and it has been stopped by blocking you because it was the only way anyone knew how to stop you. You came very close to being community banned before you were locked out of this talk page. I must say, your email carried not one shred of humour or sarcasm, was civil and keenly, cleanly written. This tells me you most likely do know how to post to the pages of this privately owned website without driving other editors bats. However, in a way, that worries me even more. Hence, you're not being set upon by editors here but rather, editors who are here to build an encyclopedia tend to think they've been set upon by you. You cannot skirt this. WP:BASC and/or WP:Standard offer are the only steps I know of left to you. There is a way you can come back to editing but it will take time and most likely, a shift in heart from you. I do wish you all the best. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got your second email. WP:Consensus has little to do with being "right" or "wrong." Given this, there is a consensus for both your block and talk page lock out. Write an email to WP:BASC and in that email, don't talk about anyone but yourself, don't even hint at the behaviour or edits of others, the block is all about you and only you. In sundry ways that makes it easier, so please do think about that. Editors here are much more forgiving than you may think, this is only a website, it can take time to settle into things here, you are not banned, only blocked. Please take these big, looming hints so many editors have given you. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong would be close enough as a synonym for incorrect here. WP:BASC awaits you, there is a way for you to get yourself unblocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, TFM. I had things to do in meatspace and have been away from WP. If you really want something posted on-wiki, I or someone else can do that for you, but that may or may not be in your best interest. I have to catch up on what's going on now. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E-mails

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)[reply]

Could you reveal the contents of the e-mail? --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would require Fat/BErD's permission, due to copyright rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside: Such “revelation” of the contents of the email would most likely qualify as fair use. See OPG v. Diebold and the judgement of the court in that case applying the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. — Spike Toronto 21:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia policy is tighter than that, see Wikipedia:Email#Abuse_handling. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I see that the wikipolicy does permit one to “describe briefly in summary what it contains or shows.” Thanks again. — Spike Toronto 04:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know there even was an e-mail? How is it appropriate to post something like this when the user can't even defend themself?--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And replying via e-mail would require me to give my e-mail address to this user, something I am unwilling to do. Courcelles 01:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I sympathize, I think it's kind of unfair to post a comment here that's a bit of a "tease". I've occasionally told editors not to e-mail me again, but I did it through e-mail. However, Gwen's comments are also somewhat ominous. Maybe you and Gwen should discuss this off-wiki? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have now received five e-mails from this user in the last 180 minutes. Given the shitstorm blocking this user would likely lead to, fine. I'll just turn off my e-mail for a while. Courcelles 01:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked The Fat Man... to discontinue this behavior immediately, and am looking into this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fat Man... has agreed that he will not e-mail Courcelles any more. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Jayron32 21:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your e-mail

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:

"stop spreading lies about me

you should be ashamed of yourself"

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)[reply]

Happy Holidays to the Fat Man!

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)[reply]

Darn you, TFM, you get on a plane and the Wiki doesn't know what to do with you ... well, does it ever? Let's go ski in Utah with that Kablammo dude! Have a very very Merry Christmas, and a jolly drunken New Year, full of fat-filled pork and ham! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser says it's not Fat Man. If you believe anything Fat Man tells you, you should have your respective heads examined. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hold back on the personalization, BB ... for the third time, you really should have a better understanding by now of how CU works. I was on a plane yesterday, too ... can CU make me a sock of TFM? It's time for you to back off or have your actions come under community scrutiny. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugsy, I wished The Fat Man happy holidays. Why don't you let it go at that? Kablammo (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Roger Alan Wade

The article Roger Alan Wade has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:BAND. No reliable sources found, just tangential name-drops and WP:ROUTINE.

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)[reply]

Nomination of Roger Alan Wade for deletion

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)[reply]

Ass cancer listed at Redirects for discussion

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)[reply]

OBAMA! listed at Redirects for discussion

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)[reply]

OBAMA! listed at Redirects for discussion

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)[reply]

Nomination of Ass cancer for deletion

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)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Macaca (disambiguation)

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

disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

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)[reply]

"Pool's closed due to AIDS" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)[reply]

User talk:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

Young lady

hmmmmmmm ...

Adoption

Spill the beans

Block

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

Goya vey! Masterpieces of Wikipedia: An Exhibition

Proposed deletion of Gail King

FAC review from content expert needed

Interesting

RfD nomination of OBAMA!

Bambenek

Just a quack reminder

Bambenek sources

Usernames

Query

RFA?

Because ...

Articles for deletion nomination of Snooki

Barnstars for deletion The Fat man to David Shankbone

Congratulations

You are now a Reviewer

related

reference desk tag

Vandalism

Blocked

Block reduced

Note

Jester's privilege

Indefinite block for misuse of an alternative account

Question for the Fat Man Who Never Came Back

Can I have my rollback and reviewer privileges reinstated?

Note 2

Comment

If you do end up getting permabanned

Note 3

Whodunnit

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

ANI Notice

December 2010

so wut do i need to do to become unblock

I wish to roll back the vandals.

A MESSAGE TO BASEBALL BUGS

Talkpage access

hi pls unblock me, with restrictions

Discussion

your email

E-mails

Your e-mail

Happy Holidays to the Fat Man!

Proposed deletion of Roger Alan Wade

Nomination of Roger Alan Wade for deletion

Ass cancer listed at Redirects for discussion

OBAMA! listed at Redirects for discussion

OBAMA! listed at Redirects for discussion

Nomination of Ass cancer for deletion

Speedy deletion nomination of Macaca (disambiguation)

"Pool's closed due to AIDS" listed at Redirects for discussion

Navigation menu

Search