User talk:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Request 2 categories and sub-categories 3 History fix 4 Enos (Book of Mormon) 5 AfD procedure 6 Re:Thanks for the death threat 7 Howdy 8 Patrick M. McCabe 9 Pornography 10 Help with footnotes 11 List of famous tall men 12 I'm sorry 13 Congratulations 14 Deleting other's messages 15 Star etc 16 Bassists 17 Trivia 18 Mullet picture 19 Bohemianism 20 Sources 21 Re: 22 Wikipedia:WikiProject Guitarists invitation 23 AK-47 linkspam 24 Personal attacks 25 Knicks-Nuggets brawl 26 Patrick M. McCabe again 27 Michael Richards 28 Michael Richards sockpuppetry? 29 HaH! 30 re: Redirect discussion 31 Talk:Cannabis (drug) 32 Boozer's birthplace 33 Short story 34 3RR 35 Re:Block 36 Michael Richards 37 Borat 38 List of tall men 39 Discounting votes 40 DRV for List of tall men 41 A bit of balance 42 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men 43 WP:NOT for pop lists 44 Change Username 44.1 The Fat Man Who Never Came Back → Thinthin 45 Sudden Jihad syndrome 46 Just Want to Commend You 47 Babels 48 Black comedy 49 Michael Richards 50 Ape Language 51 Please take another look at the article

[edit] Request

Please do not clutter my talk page with "templates" or generic notices, such as a list of the "pillars" of Wikipedia or vandalism warnings (which will rarely be warranted, unless I've been Editing While Intoxicated). If you post something here, it should be something you wrote yourself. Everything else will be deleted.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] categories and sub-categories

Saw your note on the Category talk:Literary critics. Generally speaking, Wikipedia practice is that if all members of a subcategory would also be considered members of that category then articles that belong in the subcategory should have just the subcategory. Given the nature of Wikipedia, this isn't always the case, as you noticed with the Edmund Wilson article. There can be any number of reasons why an article might have a more generic category, but usually it involves the more specific category not having been around when the category was added to the article, or the article editor was unaware of the more specific category. If you notice such a situation, feel free to edit the article (as I just did to the Edmund Wilson article) so that it uses the more specific category. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that categories are extremely unselective. In the rare case of someone who is looking for every single literary critic found in Wikipedia, the added effort of trolling thru the sub categories isn't a problem. On the other hand, if someone is looking for exemplary examples of literary critics, that's what articles are for, assuming that they've been written. Caerwine Caerwhine 14:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History fix

Listen, fat man, I do what I want, when I want. Luckily for you, I feel like helping you today. TacoDeposit 16:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a request on Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. TacoDeposit 16:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:TacoDeposit --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enos (Book of Mormon)

I removed your addition to the Enos (Book of Mormon) article since it wasn't clear that Krusty's limerick was specific to the Book of Mormon character rather than anyone named "Enos". Perhaps it should be included in the Enos disambiguation article instead. andersonpd 17:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD procedure

You're welcome.

For future reference, once you put the subst:afd template on the top of the article, there is a set of 3 wikilinks in text form for afd1, afd2, and afd3 for you to copy and paste.

1. afd1 is the one you just added, so it's already done.
2. afd2 goes on "this article's entry" at the AfD page. If you click the link for "this article's entry" in the AfD box, it will give you a blank page (unless the article has already been AfD'd once). Just paste the afd2 wikilink from the AfD template and where it says "Text=", add your reasoning and signature after the = and before the end curly brackets.
3. afd3 goes on the log page. Copy and paste it to the "log" link to the right of the three wikilinks that you've been copying and pasting. It should take you straight to the "edit this page" for the AfD log for today. Paste, make sure the pagename field is correct, and you're done.

Hope that helps. ju66l3r 16:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Thanks for the death threat

You're welcome. Well, you know how teenagers and other people like to have fights in parking lots and stuff like that? Well...

I actually hate myself for what I did to the Meg White talk page, but I was extremely angered by what I read on that talk page, me being an extreme White Stripes fan. Thanks though, and enjoy Wikipedia! --S-man 22:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Your message "please contribute" was encouraging vandalism. You might like to consider if keeping the threat is helpful to the purpose of building an encyclopedia, which I presume is your interest in being here. Tyrenius 01:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See AN. Tyrenius 03:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Howdy

I have read the discussion, also I think you should read WP:Userpage. It's not a gem, you should see my deleted history. Look, this is something that is a serious issue and it's very troubling having it on your userpage. Yanksox 12:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest it would be prudent and show respect for the serious concerns raised about this, to leave it off your user page, until such time as you have a consensus of support for retaining such material. Tyrenius 12:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, I don't have any "authority," I just have a couple extra buttons. Secondly, I'm pretty chipper, so I don't need to "lighten up." One of the key issues here is that you are feeding the trolls, and just giving them reason to vandalise. Also, having that up there does appear to violate WP:Userpage, in expressing polemical views. I find it troubling having comments like that up there, I think we have all been very uneasy about alot of recent events involving users that you were slightly connected with. Again, I am just one person, but take it to AN. I don't think it is approate to have something of that nature on your userpage, despite the immaturity of the post, it does exist. Yanksox 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick M. McCabe

Hi Fat Man, I am Patrick M. McCabe. Congratulations on finally deleting my article. However, you were incorrect in your assertations. I really do exist. And everything on my article is true. Great work researching my books in libraries and book stores. You might have been less surprised not to find me there if you actually read the article a little more carefully. I claimed that I was an award-winning short story author, but it says right there on the page that the only award I've ever won is the "Headmaster's Prize for Essay" - a prize given out at my school. Also, perhaps you should brush up on your French. My article claims critics have called me 'a modern day pied noir'. This sounds very literary, but actually it is simply a Fench term for a "French settler in Africa". Finally, I also claim critics think I am an "Australian R.J. Stanley". However, R.J. Stanley's only literary achievement is co-writing my Chemistry text-book, whcih just happened to be lying around when I wrote the article. IN addition, he is Australian. So I admit defeat. You outsmarted me. But you could have done it a lot quicker if you'd just read the article a bit more carefully. That would also have saved you a trip to the bookstore and library. Solipsist3 08:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right that I never really read your article--though brief, the article iteslf was woefully uninteresting; as a writer, you may wish to affect a punchier prose style that will immediately sieze the reader's interest. What did get my attention was the way you were insinuating yourself into articles that people actually do read, articles like short story and Australian literature. Had you not done so, no one would have noticed your humdrum narcissism piece, and it would not have been deleted. And don't flatter yourself imagining that the Fat Man has the energy or to the inclination to leave his chair to go sifting through bookstores and libraries on your account. It took about 2 seconds to enter your name into Amazon and into my public libarary's online search engine--much quicker than it would have taken to read your article, and only slightly less time than it took to nominate it for deletion. Enjoy making wiseass contributions in bad faith. As a solipsist, surely you'll agree that Wikipedia was created expressly for your amusement; the Fat Man salutes you, and your sockpuppets too.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Fat Man. It's nice to be noticed. I must say, though, that the whole idea was not to capture the reader's attention, so your criticism of my writing technique was a little unfair. Also, I must say that your accusation of me using what you WIkipedia folk like to call 'sock puppets' is completely unfounded. The only name I have ever used on Wikipedia is Solipsist3. I'm disappointed that you did not go to a real bookstore or library to check out my books. But I must commend you and your brethren on the sterling job you did of recovering every one of my Wikipedia references. I was named on quite a number of lists, but all references are gone. Is there some trick to this, or did you and your fellow good Wikipedians tirelessly search for and destroy every last remnant of my existence? Solipsist3 07:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you spend less effort wasting your own and others' time over these ventures, and get on with some serious editing. We are not here to indulge your whims. Tyrenius 15:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Fat Man, what’s with this Tyrenius guy? He pops up everywhere criticising Wikipedia experimenters such as myself. He even criticised you just because you left death threats on your user page. Who cares? It’s your user page after all. I thought it was a good tactic to take the ‘thrill’ out of such vandalism. Anyway, my question still stands. How did you find me in all those lists and articles? Solipsist3 01:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pornography

First let me apologize, certainly many of the things that you mention are true. I should have reserved more time for editing so that it would not end up being as clumsy.

As for the non-sequitir, as you call it, I thought I had put it in, realized what you had done, and pulled it out. Please feel free to pull it out again, if I don't get to it first.

As for the article length, I have concerns also, but there was a great deal of valuable detail removed. Granted, some of it could certainly be edited out as not really directly relevant. Again something I will get to, if you don't first. My main concern, certainly not related to you, is that alot of detail has been changed recently that reduced the tone of the article from one of balanced and informational to one of almost making it anti-pornographic rhetoric. I ackolwedge that there should be a place in the article for refencing those concerns (although the Wikipedia article on anti-pornography shouyld have most of the detail, not here). The article should give information about the subject to people interested without being overly long. The net effect also is the de-emphasis of the anti-pornography section so that it is a balanced portion, rather than dominating the article.

Mid-way in editing I realized I had inadvertently picked up an old version. This is truely, what you described as clumsy. That's perhaps how the religious objection portion got re-inserted.

I do take your efforts as good faith, and apologize for stepping on your toes. I'll be more careful next edit. Regards to you Atom 16:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with footnotes

I was trying to improve the pornography article by creating a List of pornography laws by region. However, when I did so, the footnotes are all jacked up! There should only be 7 of them, but each footnote appears twice in the list of references, for a baffling total of 14. What did I do wrong?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to either Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Mysterious problem involving footnotes and citation templates or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Strange situation with footnotes. It seems to be an error that suddenly appeared out of the blue. -- Lost^(talk) 16:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried the purge function, as suggested on the link you gave me, and it worked.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous tall men

Can you come and take a look at these basketball players who keep getitng added please? Rik Smits, Shawn Bradley, David Robinson, Tim Duncan. (Halbared 07:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

Responded on your Talk Page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 11:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm sorry

I'm sorry for deleting other's messages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lieutenant Dol Grenn (talk • contribs) 14:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you are, but you just did it again.[1]--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

I'm sorry we didn't see eye to eye recently, but I wasn't of course the only one here. I do not think that you had any malicious intent. However, I would like to congratulate you on your work over Patrick M. McCabe and offer you something else to fill your user page instead. Tyrenius 16:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For purging wikipedia of the deliberately useless articles as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick M. McCabe Tyrenius 16:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting other's messages

No! I didn't delete all messages only these messages who are a little bit critism.

[edit] Star etc

I can assure you the star wasn't a joke! I thought you did a nice job there and deserve some recognition, also that you had a gap to fill... I'm happy to accept the current arrangment re. retaining mere insults, but not threats of violence. I speak only for myself here. You're welcome to draw anyone else's attention to this, if you wish. I suggest you might consider putting any serious threats on AN to make admins aware. There is the possibility of them being followed up by the police. In the previous case, I emailed the school head to draw his attention to what had happened. Tyrenius 16:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

PS Thanks for contacting me re your insult posts. This shows good sense, obviously, in the circumstances. Tyrenius 17:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, Fat Man! Really well deserved. I have to say, I agree with Tyrenius here. And I might also compliment you on your insults. In the Patrick M. McCabe article abovve, you did a magnificent job of insulting me, and more recently again performed well with your 'misguided youth' rant. I wish I could insult as well as you. Also, if it wasn't for you, that article might have slipped through 'the web'. Great job. Solipsist3 10:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think when Tyrenius referred to my "insult posts" he was referring to the contributions of vandals that now decorate my talk page, not my multiple "rants" [2],[3] directed toward Mr. McCabe, which were never (primarily) intended to be insulting. As for your sarcastic praise of my vituperative virtuosity, it's unwarranted; I'm no Don Rickles, but if you wish to be, I suggest practice, practice, practice (just not on wikipedia; that would probably be considered uncviil). Thanks, by the way, for correcting my typos.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Fat Man, don't put yourself down - stick to putting me down. Those compliments weren't sarcastic! You really made me feel guilty with your rant about 'misspent youth' and your earlier one about 'narcissism' was pretty good too. No worries with the typos, but ironically enough, you spelt uncivil wrong just before you complimented me about the typos. I really hope there are no typos in this posting now. Solipsist3 04:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bassists

Good work on your tireless efforts to keep the list of notable bassists succinct. It seems lots of people have strange ideas about what constitutes notable. "Country" Bushrod Washington 04:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I am quite familiar with both of those pages and I happen to disagree with both of them. Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles is only a guideline, and one that passed with only 62% of votes in favor of it, and I feel that many users who would like to have a say in that discussion did not get to (I myself did not get to participate because I was limiting my Wikipedia activities during the time of the discussion and did not find out about it until these toomuchtrivia tags started appearing). Wikipedia:Trivia is only a proposed guideline, anybody can create one.

Yes, it is true that fans like to read fun facts about the TV shows and movies they enjoy.

If you pay attention to my arguments this has nothing to do with them. I do not like fan cruft.

On Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles it says at the top

This guideline in a nutshell: Lists of facts, as found in trivia sections, are better presented within the context of the text rather than in a section of unrelated items.

Which I fundamentally disagree with. Some information is better presented in trivia section form. Just as some information is better presented in a table (in fact, I think everything said on that page could just as easily be applied to tables), some information naturally leads itself to being included in a trivia section. Certainly many trivia sections contain some information that should be integrated into the main prose of the article, but not all.

However, Wikipedia articles are not the place to display those facts indiscriminately, in list form.

I would agree with you here, but I feel that in every case I have editted the facts were not an indiscriminate collection in list form. They were relevant, interesting facts that were best presented in a list form.

And finally I would like to point out that there is not one universal definition of what is too much trivia. For some articles having even one item of trivia would be too much, for others a rather large section might serve the article best, the nature of the topic of the article determines how much information should be presented in the trivia section. Suoerh2 07:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mullet picture

There is business at the front. I think the party at the back is exclusive. Rintrah 14:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bohemianism

My bad and I beg your forgiveness. I didn't mean to delete W'burg completely, just got distracted in the rewrite. Have restored in the context of the new edit. Charles T. Betz 18:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

As a new user you may be unaware of the fact that in years past the practice was to place all general sources in "external links". Wikipedia is improving its standards and that's a good thing. But just because older articles used different standards doens't mean that material is unsourced. If you'd like to bring the article up to higher standards then I heartily support that effort. -Will Beback 19:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will improve the referencing (first I have some errands to run). But do understand that this effort will likely result in the deletion of material for which I cannot find a reference (don't worry, I'll look in the External Links before deleting anything).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Do your best. There may be additional sources available that aren't already in the article. The topic is pretty cut-and-dried, so we shold be able to source everything. Cheers, -Will Beback 20:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was my original point as well, that we should be able to source everything.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Ah, okay. Also, I've blocked User:The fat man never since he seems to be impersonating you. --W.marsh 16:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Guitarists invitation

Hi! Noticed your NN patrolling of the bassist list. Just wondering if you had time/interest in joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guitarists fold. An ever growing group of Wikipedians interesting in editing/improving any/all guitar/guitarist(which, of course includes all bass guitar/bass guitarist) articles. If you feel you can contribute, your participation would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! Anger22 18:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AK-47 linkspam

There was already an advertisement in the links for this book, therefore it's linkspam. Further, it was a digest of the book and books should be placed in the reference section, not under links. Larry's trying to sell his books.--Asams10 17:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

I felt you should know that the following has been used as an example of a personal attack [4] in a discusion on the personal attack intervention page. Your comments on it would be appreciated.-Psychohistorian 20:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knicks-Nuggets brawl

Hi. In terms of deleting the "AfD" nomination on the page, that was a good start, but sometimes people get testy about that, though the person who put it up was an unregistered user. I'm just writing to you here asking you to remember to state your opinion on that article's Talk page, just so if someone else nominates it for deletion we have some record of things done right and proper and, err... democratic. JesseRafe 12:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I was acting on the Proposed Deletion template instructions which say "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason." I also explained my actions in the edit summary (also a valid record). However, if that upsets editors, I will be sure to justify my actions on the Talk page in the future.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick M. McCabe again

Forgive me, Fat Man! It was a moment of frivolity, but one I can't say I regret as it got me back in contact with my favourite Wikipedia pal! Fat Man! How have you been? It's been far too long. I'm so glad you tracked down your old mate Solipsist3. How exactly did you stumble across my latest venture anyway? Merry Christmas Fat Man! Solipsist3 00:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Richards

"If you are going to revert controversial edits without truly participating in the discussion, at least make sure that the language you're reverting to makes sense. "Michael Anthony Richards (born July 24, 1949) is an Emmy Award-winning, American comedic actor, three-time Emmy Award winner, writer, producer, and best known for playing Kramer on the television show Seinfeld." Did you read that sentence to your yourself before you reverted? I know you didn't write it, but it looks and sounds awful. Taking sides in a content dispute is one thing, but butchering the readability of a paragraph is quite another.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)"

First its not that horrible, as you make it out to be, yes its not the best, but its certainly not butchering anything. Second the article existed a whole 6 to 7 minutes in the state that you quote, as the redundancy was corrected by netscott in a matter of minutes. Yes i did read it i did notice that it was redundant a fact that was discussed earlier. I was ready to correct it, but netscott beat me to it. Its not the end of the world an article existed in a slightly inferior state for a couple of minutes, take it easy. Geza 14:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

copied from Netscott's talk page:

[edit] Michael Richards sockpuppetry?

I am very suspicious that 81.182.xxx.xxx, the anon user responsible for controversial edits and 3RR violations to the Michael Richards page is non other than User:Kgeza67. Almost the minute the article was semi-protected, Kgeza67 returned and began performing very similar edits to the anon user. Circumstantial evidence seems to support my suspicion. Is this enough reason for me to bring this to the attention of the admins who monitor Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite possible: see this. Note the nationality associated with that name and note the nationality of the IP addresses. (→Netscott) 19:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently a bit too busy to do so myself but I would strongly recommend that you submit User:Kgeza67 for WP:RFCU to establish this or otherwise make a posting on WP:ANI with your suspicions. (→Netscott) 19:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm also rather tied up at the moment, but when I get around to it, this sounds like a good idea.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HaH!

I like your username too, it's hilarious (At least when I'm sleep-deprived). 68.39.174.238 06:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Redirect discussion

The talk page of the redirect is the best place to discuss it. If that doesn't achieve consensus, then RFD is an appropriate place to bring it. RFD is primary deletion related, but it is also used for discussions to generate broader community consensus. In general, however, if there is argument over where a redirect should go & both are valid options, then a disambiguation page is the right approach. -- JLaTondre 15:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have noticed however, that one of the "guiding principles" on RfD is "RfD is not the place to resolve editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article." I don't want to rankle anyone who believes in this principle. So I have made the article in dispute a dab page for now, but I might propose a page move in the future.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Cannabis (drug)

Thanks for jumping in there. I've just about had my fill of that nonsense...every time I calmly offer yet another citation, it's greeted with "you're wrong" and assorted emotional outbursts. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW I dont agree with all Thoric says and certainly dont want a pro cannabis pov article, whatever pov I may express on my user page, SqueakBox 19:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry for unjustly lumping the two of you together.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boozer's birthplace

How interesting. The Yahoo! one doesn't surprise me. Yahoo!'s celebrity biography pages (not just sports, but music celebs and others) are notoriously erroneous very frequently. They seem to do just about zero fact-checking over there. Would have expected better, though, from ESPN. Mwelch 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Short story

Fat man, I wasn't trying to delete edits by other people in the short story article. The problem is that someone deleted large sections of the article a while back in what appears to be simple vandalism. Just trying to reinsert those sections. Anyway, instead of just reverting I physically went back in and reinserted the missing info. Best,--Alabamaboy 15:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a great deal of important content (including some sections I contributed to myself) was removed from the article, so it's good that you're now restoring them manually, without overwriting the hard work of editors who have tried to improve the article since those sections were removed.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've now made the changes. Please let me know if I deleted anything you think was valuable. The only section I deleted was the history section which was shorter and more POV than the original section was. The deleted section contained POV statements like "There are the stories that stay with people forever and then there are also some stories that are forgotten." While I won't debate the poetic truth in statements like that, they don't belong in the article, especially when the article originally had a more detailed and factual history section. Let me know what you think. Best,--Alabamaboy 15:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You should read the full history of the page List of very tall men instead of popping up like this. RCS 19:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been following every comment on that talk page for months. Nothing you'll find there will justify your edits, nor your disregard for WP:3RR.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You know what ? You are telling lies. If you had followed something somewhere, you'd have noticed that it was i who started reverting the IP (later becoming an account), not the other way round. What's really on your mind ? RCS 07:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It takes two to tango, and your "he started it" argument is infantile. You should both be blocked. As an established user, you have less of an excuse to ignore one of the fundamental Wikipedia principles than does your friend with a new account.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you hunger for me to get blocked will not be stilled. You'll have to find something else. RCS 15:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Block

The sockpuppeteer comment refers to accounts Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk • contribs), Man Never Came Back (talk • contribs), and The fat man never (talk • contribs). I don't remember what they did (it was several months ago), so I had to check their deleted edits; it seems that they were repeatedly re-creating a deleted article. I presume that they were impersonators and not operated by you (given that you reverted a removal of the deletion notice from the article by one of them). Correct? - Mike Rosoft 16:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarifies the story. I remember what happened--those were all impersonators of me. I nominated an article for deletion, which made the author of the article (a talented electric bass player from Spain) very upset. He set up a bunch of accounts with names similar to mine; mostly, though, he just blanked my user page anonymously, which he still does from time to time. I hope he still finds time to practice with all the time he spends vandalizing. Anyway, I understand the confusion.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Richards

Hey, Fat Man! I'm asking you to Come Back! Hey! I'm thinking it may be time to start paring down the Michael Richards article a bit, as it is no longer a current event. I posted a note on the article's talk page. I wanted to get some sense of concensus before rocking the boat. Cleo123 00:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Borat

Sorry for the confusion, but someone else had wrecked a reference on an edit in the Production section. That was what I was refering to in the edit summary.--Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 14:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm also sorry for the misunderstanding, but still you reverted my link to the War on Terrorism article. Was this intentional?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't intentional. Sorry. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 14:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of tall men

So we are back to 6ft 5, exactly where i had the page started. You shouldn't have interfered as you have. I will ask for the demotion of the administrator who so willingly followed your whim. You never know. RCS 16:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

One can only hope you've learned your lesson--namely, to achieve consensus before making drastic edits; also, follow the 3RR even if some other fool happens to be breaking it. Since your block, consensus on the issue has been achieved. Prior to that, consensus had not been established, and your deletions were highly inappropriate. Furthermore, your intemperate tendency to hurl ethnic insults probably won't do much for your campaign to desysop the admin who rightfully blocked you.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to get into a fight, but could one of you put it on deletion review for me. Thanks.--T. Anthony 17:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discounting votes

Your recent "discounted" vote comments were obnoxious. I find your claim that you discounted the majority of keep votes because they were "based on no arguments applicable to Wikipedia policy or guideline" disingenous.

For example, you "discounted" my following comment: "Keep. Deletion nominators are relentless. This is a problematic but still salvageable article; it's way too soon for another afd; isn't this inappropriate?"

Actually, that particular concern is addressed in official Wikipedia policy:

Repeated attempts to have an article deleted for non-policy reasons may sometimes be considered abuse of process and/or disruptive, and the article may be speedy kept.

Please don't respond by saying to take it up with Deletion review or that I should have included the word "speedy" to make it clear which policy I was referring to; I really don't really care what happens to that frivolous article you deleted; I'm saying your dismissiveness toward many established editors was ill-considered and will rub many the wrong way.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 11:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't point you towards deletion review for this issue, it's a very valid one, and I do understand your point - I apologise if this came off as dismissive (or obnoxious ... really?). As the closer, I am required to exercise my judgement to the best of my abilities. It was clear that there was a vast majority of editors that considered the deletion discussion to be valid (nb, not referring to the actual deletion here, merely the judgement of the community on whether or not the AFD discussion should have taken place). This was implicit, in the volume of arguments made both for deletion and for keeping. Calls for the discussion to be closed early as a (speedy) keep were in a considerable minority, and failed to adress any of the issues that led to the AFD discussion occurring. As it was clear that the discussion was a valid one that warranted taking place, any argument based solely on '(speedy) keep as AFD is not valid' was discounted. Does this make sense? If it doesn't, then I'm afriad that is the point at which I would have to point you towards deletion review. Proto::► 12:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV for List of tall men

I intend to propose List of tall men for deletion review. However, in light of the extent of your participation in the AfD discussion and your discussion with the closing admin, I wanted to first present my rationale for the DRV to you (and to User:T. Anthony) for comment so that it has the best chance of succeeding at DRV. Thanks, Black Falcon 19:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted even though no consensus was reached. 17 users supported deletion (one of which was simply "per nom", but was not discounted) and 17 voted to keep the article (a few of the "keep" votes were discounted by the closing administrator). Now, granted that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but AfDs should be decided through consensus and not polling. 17 vs. 12 or 13 hardly seems to be a consensus. The administrator's justification for the decision is that:

The arguments to keep are very poor in comparison with those for deletion. Nobody has succesfully refuted the chief reason for deletion - that the list is subjective and there is no accepted single definition of what to be 'tall' means.

However, a number of users directly addressed and refuted the chief reason for deletion--the "subjectivity" of the term tall. See, for instance, the comment by User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back against a "fruitless semantic exercise":

NOR applies to "new definitions of pre-existing terms;" it does not preclude the variable, reasonable interpretation of very common adjectives.

The criticism of the subjectivity of the term "tall" blurs the distinction between a criterion that is subjective and one that has alternatives. Notability could, in theory, have any number of possible (and plausible) definitions, but WP:Notability is an objective criterion. Likewise, the term tall could have varying interpretations, but it can also be an objective criterion (reached through consensus and verified by external sources).

At the least, the article should be restored so that it could be renamed to List of the tallest men, which could list the tallest men ever, in specific countries/regions, at particular times in history, etc. (this is really a matter for that article’s talk page).

I would support a deletion review. The only thing I would add is that all this bitching about subjectivity sets a dangerous precedent. It's now permissible to delete any article, as long a handful of editors complain that one of the words in the article title is subject to interpretation.

Consider these search results:

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

We can now start arguing about what "early" or "black" means and whether something/someone is early or black enough to warrant inclusion on any of these lists. Should all the lists now be deleted because they contain such a subjective term? How about the List of unusual deaths (see also [9], listed above) I mentioned during the tall men AfD discussion? List of famous people who died young? List of fat actors? Nice knowing you. What about List of metropolitan areas by population? There's constant griping and disagreement on its talk page about how we should define a metropolitan area. And since were discussing the List of tall women article, why don't we obliterate the List of tallest buildings and structures in the world? In my view, the closer--along with many of the delete voters--were mis-using the term original research, and we if applied their standards to hundreds of other list and non-list articles, a significant percentage of Wikipedia content would be stand danger of deletion.

It's darkly amusing that so many here prefer outright destruction (easy) to consensus building (hard work).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I noted to the closing admin on his talk page (very bottom) that this paves the way for deleting any article involving a relational adjective (e.g., all of the lists in List of "largest" articles) and am awaiting a response. Black Falcon 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

'Largest' and 'tall' are different superlatives ... the equivalent would be 'largest' and 'tallest'. List of tallest men would probably be ok. A simple, non-controversial cut off, such as '20 tallest men alive', '20 tallest men ever', and 5 tallest notable people in certain professions where height is noteworthy and relevant (e.g. NBA) could then be created. Proto::► 10:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

20 is an abitary cut off, no different from picking 7 feet as the cut of point on the deleted list. Personally I believe it ought to have stayed. Oh well. Mathmo ^Talk 07:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have only just noticed the deletion of the article, a true shame, not just for the deletion, but the way it seems to have been handled and executed. Perhaps you were right in your original appraisal of those first edits to undermine it?Halbared 19:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A bit of balance

The bit of balance that you brought lastly to the editing on Michael Richards is a welcome sight. Take it easy. (→Netscott) 00:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men

Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOT for pop lists

I'd like to encourage you to take a look at some of the articles of this type that I've AfDed in the last few days and add your opinion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of appearances of C96 in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm Spartacus!, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who became famous only in death, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to Calvin and Hobbes among others. Otto4711 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change Username

[edit] The Fat Man Who Never Came Back → Thinthin

• Current name: The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk • contribs)
• Requested name: Thinthin (change username)
• Reason: Your username is too long.. -- Invader Soap 16:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Pish posh. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What is pish posh? ----Invader Soap^{Evil Jokes}_{Gir's Dog}February 13^th, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sudden Jihad syndrome

Thanks for the notice of intention. Sudden Jihad Syndrome is a term that will get used more and more as time goes on. I appreciate your Liberal attempt to surpress the truth. I know you know no other way. God bless you. Prester John 06:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just Want to Commend You

For responding with so much civility towards what must be one of the most hypocritical personal attacks I've seen on WP. I'm still laughing at this gem from her ad hominem edit: "Otherwise, let's try to discuss the content of this article." and the latest contrived nugget of wisdom: "It is also very difficult to assume good faith from someone who makes so many uncivil remarks targeted towards any editor who disagrees with his point of view." Though in the spirit of AGF I'm inclined to attribute such blatant hypocrisy not as much to malice as to delusion/incompetence. In any case, just letting you know other editors (and reading between the lines I get the sense even the admin is getting tired of their act as well) are laughing along with you. Cheers. Tendancer 14:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the acknowledgment. It is important to me that others perceive my disposition as civil.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Babels

Where are the babels? MM 13:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

On the Babel (disambiguation) page, most likely.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. MM 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black comedy

Thanks for your bold culling of the Black Comedy article. I'm embarassed to say I've been watching it for a few months, now, and have been fretting over what to do with it. Thank you for doing what I was too afraid to do. :) --Mdwyer 01:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Richards

Thank you so much for the kind note you left on my talk page. I want to extend my sincerest appologies for my part in our misunderstanding. Moving forward, I will do my best to assume good faith on your part. The work process on that article has just been so contentious, that perhaps my own perspective has become a bit askew. There is no "connection" between User:Bus stop" and myself other than sharing some similar editorial views. I took offense at your "dynamic duo" remark although it struck a deep chord in me. I do feel, in many ways, that for some months now it has fallen on Bus stop and myself to defend Michael Richards against a host of "attackers".

As I'm sure you realize, Bus stop and I are both relatively new, inexperienced editors, who have had a very difficult time defending our position within WIkipedia's guidelines - which for me are "Chinese" to some extent. For goodness sake, I didn't even know what a "sockpuppet" was when the Kgeza problems started! (I had to look it up.) When one is still learning about Wikipedia's editorial policies, it is very difficult to reasonably defend your editorial position, when you are also being personally attacked for not knowing all the guidelines. Perhaps, this has led me to be a bit "paranoid" in my assessments. I hope you understand the place I am coming from and I appologize if I have misjudged your motivations.

I know Michael, not very closely, but well enough to know that he really is not a racist. I understand that I cannot introduce my own "original research" or personal knowlege to the article and I have not done so. I will say, however, that there is a lot more to this story that has not been covered by the press. Because I do know Michael, I was very hesitant to edit the article at all - but there seemed to be no one defending him other than Bus stop. The fact that Bus stop was taking a terrible beating from other editors, led to my uncomfortable decision to enter the frey. It was a very sad moment of realization for me that a complete and total stranger out in cyberspace was to be my sole ally defending Michael against the hoard.

In some ways, your edits to the opening sentence of his biography strike to the core of the tragedy. Although most actors dream of a successful sitcom, few realize that the work can rob them of not only their personal identity but any chance of a future career. The sad truth is that when an actor becomes overly identified with a particular character in the public eye - he is no longer hirable. This is something that Michael has struggled with. The lack of success connected with the Michael Richards Show is firmly rooted in the audience's resistance to see him as anything other than Kramer, not in any fault in him as a performer. Unfortunately, actors, as a group, are very sensitive people and these types of career "set-backs" can be profoundly degrading, demoralizing and psychologically disabling. Michael is a wonderful, warm human being who made a terrible mistake. In many ways, he will pay for that mistake forever. We can either choose to continue punishing him, or we can give him the same kind of break we would wish for ourselves. I see no point in throwing salt in the wounds.

In any case, I hope that I have been able to provide you some insight as to my perspective. I hope that we can make a fresh start here. I look forward to having a productive and positive working relationship with you in the future. Happy editing! Cleo123 07:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ape Language

Hello The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. I noticed you created a category for ape-language subjects and titled it "purportedly linguistic apes". I worry that this title is not neutral (per NPOV guidlines on wikipedia:categorization). Websters defines "puported" as "to have the often specious appearance of being, intending, or claiming." The success of ape-language projects is disputed, and there are notable scientists who would disagree about ape linguistic aptitute having a "specious appearence" (The Washoe and Ai projects claim to be moderate linguistic successes, in fact). And in the case of Nim Chimpsky, the primary researchers called off the project and declared the chimpanzee unable to learn language. So who is "purporting" that Nim Chimpsky is a linguistic ape? Certainly not the scientists invloved with Nim. And why should said "puporter's" judgement outweigh Nim's own researcher's conclusions with regard to this encyclopedic categorization?

I agree that that the name of the category raises concerns and would happily endorse a suggestion for a better, more neutral-sounding name. Do you have such a suggestion? However, I hope that the category itself is not deleted outright, because I find it most useful to place all apes that have reportedly learned language under one umbrella, which I believe is a notable subcategory of both Famous apes and Animal intelligence.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 11:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please take another look at the article

Hi The Fat Man Who Never Came Back,

Please take another look at the Niggardly article. I started googling and found a lot of new information about other incidents and interesting comments in the controversy, so I added them in. I think it's a much better article now, certainly much larger and broader in scope. The article could still use some changes (including to some of the additions I made), but I think if you take another look at it you'll like it and may change your mind. Noroton 23:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)