User talk:Kablammo/Archive 9

6" gun from HMS Calypso
Hello RcB:

It's on display at Fort Nelson, Portsmouth. It's listed as on loan from pounds marine shipping Ltd. I'm not sure if the company still exists but they own/owned a naval scrapyard at the top end of Portsea Island. It was built in 1893 and was built by the elswick ordnance company. It's aparently a Mk III. I would assume it was fitted when the ship was reactivated. About the only reasonable route I can see for it ending up where it is would be if it was stripped out before the ship transfered to canada but I dont know if the scrapyard existed at that point.

©Geni 20:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You could just email fort nelson and see if they know how it ended up there fnenquiries@armouries.org.uk .©Geni 17:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever hear back from fort nelson?©Geni 23:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

- - -

Hi there, I'm trying to identify the model of gun in Geni's photo at Fort Nelson. If it was a"Mk III" QF built as new by Elswick in 1893, it would be a 40-calibres (20 feet long internally) QF gun weighing 6.6 tons. Its cartridge was a brass case. But so far as I know, HMS Calypso had the much lighter and shorter (26 calibres) 5-ton BL gun (silk bag cartridge) of 1881-1883, and I doubt it would have been able to carry the QF 40-calibres gun. The gun looks too short for the long 40-calibres QF model, but difficult to judge end-on. A view of the breech would allow definite identification. I'm wondering whether this was one of the early 1880s BL Mk III 26-calibre guns which were later converted to QF in about 1893 by Elswick ? I.e. is this a QFC 6-inch gun ? But it lacks the bell muzzle typical of the 26-calibre BL 6-inch guns. Do you have any more information about this ? Gunlist for Calypso ? thanks. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to find out the same information. Look above here, and at User_talk:Geni. I have not yet heard back from the museum. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I received this e-mail in response to my enquiry:"Dear Sir, Thank you for your enquiry and apologies for the delay. This gun carries the serial number 295 and if the surviving Gun Logs belonging to Explosion! The Museum of Naval Firepower at Priddy's Hard, Gosport but currently on deposit at the Hampshire County Record Office, Winchester, are consulted it can be seen that it was removed from Calypso and returned to store in Plymouth on the 10th August 1901 and appears to have ended up in Devonport on 23rd January 1902. Sadly there are no other entries regarding its earlier (or later) life. If, as you say, she had four such guns on board later, these would obviously carry other numbers and probably recorded in those Gun Logs. At the time this information did not form part of my brief. I am not entirely certain of the exact way this gun came to be on loan to us since it was before my time. Knowing John Pounds and his organisation as I do he would have phoned us up to let us know that he had acquired it and would we like it as a loan item. I hope this helps. Yours faithfully, [name] Curator of Artillery Royal Armouries"

I do not understand the shape of the gunhouse, but perhaps the armament changed. I have a 1963 article from Mariners Mirror which has a silhouette of other ships of the Comus class which at least suggest this shape of gunhouse.

Regards, Kablammo (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for letting me know.©Geni 00:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In case you are still interested we now have a photo of the rear of the gun File:6 inch gun from HMS Calypso rear.JPG.15:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That photo appears to confirm the gun as QF 6-inch Mk III. The photograph shows a gun with trunnions on Vavasseur mount which fits Mk III, also the breech lacks the lug underneath which Mk I and II had for connection to recoil buffer. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That picture is very helpful. It resembles the 6" housing of Calliope (right). It is harder to correlate it to the sponsoned gun on Calypso in Newfoundland, but it could be the same type of housing, but covered at the top by the shed built atop the gunwale bulwark. The museum piece was removed before the ship went to Newfoundland (I think two of the four were removed), so the gun and housing shown wharfside in the third image on the right would be a different rifle, but perhaps one of the remaining 6". Regards, Kablammo (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You can distinguish the QF gun visually as it was 6/12 feet longer than the BL guns (40 vs 26.5 cal) and had a fairly straight muzzle, whereas the BL guns had a very flared muzzle. Let me know if you find any such photos showing the QF gun on Calyso. I would be suprised, as the QF guns were far heavier than the BL (6.6 tons vs 5 tons) and I would think they would be outside the tolerance of the decks as designed. I understand that many BL 26-cal guns were upgraded to QF standard and such QFC guns would have fitted into Calypso with no problem. However, the QF MK III was a trunnion gun and mounted on Vavasseur recoil slide, similar to the BL gun, and hence would presumably have been compatible with the Calypso setup.. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Rod-- can you tell what the one in the centre picture is? Kablammo (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the original BL 6-inch, identified by the De Bang breech : you'll see that the breech mechanism is surrounded by a housing projecting back from the circumference of the breechpiece i.e. the breech appears recessed. The QF and QFC guns didn't have this, and the rear of the breech was flat, with the breech mechanism projecting clear. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. So was the Calypso gun a later replacement?  Kablammo (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If indeed it was ever on Calypso, yes... the 40-cal QF gun was an early 1890s gun, whereas the 26-cal BL guns were early 1880s and would have been available when Calyso was commissioned. But the 40-cal QF gun was a far bigger beast than the 26-cal BL, and looks too big for Calypso. And the lower photo above of Calypso in Newfoundland appears to show the flared muzzle and short barrel of the BL gun. Certainly a mixed 6-inch armament would have been more trouble than it was worth. Conclusion : the gun at Fort Nelson is not from Calypso, or else it may have been briefly trialled on board but not adopted. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the evidence I suspect the latter. Calypso remained active as part of the Training Squadron through the 1890s so may well have been fitted with newer armament.  I believe the ship was partially disarmed before being placed back into commission and sent to Newfoundland in the last half of 1902, about a year after the date when this gun is stated to have been removed from the ship (which presumably was then out of commission), as stated in the records from the museum quoted above.  Kablammo (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael Phelps
I'm glad I'm not crazy. I was like...that doesn't look like Michael Phelps...does it? But no one seems to notice until you. I'm right, right? --mboverload @ 02:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a chance, but I don't know who it is. (Someone's kid brother?)   It was only up for 10 minutes.  I suspect the image itself is on its way to deletion.   Kablammo (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Kaga FAC
I responded to your helpful critique. Cla68 (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

F4F/F6F
Thanks for reverting that. You caught it seconds after I realized the mistake and right before I went back to make the correction RobAtSGH (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC).
 * I figured you'd realize it, but wanted to make sure! Regards,  Kablammo (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Public service announcement
I only come here out of good intentions. I'm passing along a sentiment I really think you should be privy to. We all got together, like...all of Wikipedia (they voted me the spokesmodel)... and we decided that the sum total of your existence can be explained in four words: "leg banging granny raider". Please use this information wisely. For self-flagellation and improvement.

If you would like to reply, see this source. --Moni3 (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Leg"?? Why not hair? Kablammo (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The generator came up with it. That's just the one everyone voted on. --Moni3 (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the generator is a little lame. There have been chimps that do better.  Kablammo (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Moni, my wiki-experience is deficient, as I have yet to be involved in nice pleasant flame war. Should we stage one, and see how long it takes for the kiddieadmins and solemn poobahs of the wiki to show up and template and sternly caution us both?  It could be more fun than a Lutheran church picnic.  Kablammo (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But of course! What spiffing sport that shall be wot wot! Monkeys signing scatological insults is super and quite similar to a machine flipping through a couple dozen verbs and nouns to come up with random insults. Like dirty Mad Libs. The generator comes up with some senseless ones (butter climbing horse farmer), some delicious grade school punditry (nut hugging duck sack), but every once in a while it hits the level of Shakespeare or Monty Python (toilet hugging fart raider). --Moni3 (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Moni, you never press "Save page" without detracting from the sum total of human knowledge. Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.  Cheers!  Kablammo (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the stuff I was thinking of. Tell me, what's your opinion of The Punchmaster? My reaction ranges from wtf? to so confused I giggle a lot. However, apparently it strikes a salient chord in many people with Y chromosomes. Popsicle Pete I find strange and amusing, but I have yet to find an appropriate situation where I can retch-whisper "None of you are safe!" and not foretell my imminent arrest. --Moni3 (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. We seem to be losing the war on drugs (at least among the creators of on-line comics).
 * Tell me Moni: Is it true when you left the ranks of mere content contributors, to join the exalted ranks of administrators, that you raised the average IQ of both groups?  Kablammo (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone who has exerted the most infinitesimal amount of energy giving a shit about my less than illustrious career as an admin can tell you that I am a mere interloper, a faker, a poseur, mashing buttons in the missile silo with boxing gloves, making me hesitant to explode something. Don't mistake that for restraint or wisdom. The content contributions are not much more impressive. I am the illegal employer of 538 industrious caffeine-fed cigarette-smoking simians who parlay on sensitive electric typewriters. --Moni3 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We're all dilettantes here, waiting for the real experts to show up. But it's seeming more and more that they ain't coming.  Can't imagine why . . . (fill in your own diffs here)  Kablammo (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a job for The Punchmaster. Motivational for experts. --Moni3 (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "hesitant to explode something"?? I doubt that.  Kablammo (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good Granny reference. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Acra (fortress)
During the FAC process for this article, we have a comment asking that we recruit someone with an editorial distance from the subject to go through the article and cleanup "poor relationships between clauses, and fuzzy back-references". I've been burned by ce requests in the past (one of which insisted that sentences were too short, and another who removed nearly every comma). I noticed your copyedits on the Augustus article in the past, and wondered if you would have a bit of time to go through this relatively short article? I would find it very instructive. &bull; Astynax talk 19:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Malleus is a bum
I am not swapping germs with you. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mally started it! Perhaps you can find someone, somewhere, who would like to block him!  Kablammo (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Getting Mally blocked for NPAing me will be an easy enough matter; they'll be lining up to comply. I'm more worried about someone changing his g to a j :/  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Mauna Kea FAC
I have responded to your comments. Perhaps you can look over again and potentially support...? =) Cheers, Res Mar 00:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As indicated, I reviewed only the introduction in detail, and made suggestions. While I am not convinced that the lede is fully compliant with LEDE as it uses some technical terms that, to me, do not need to be there, I did not oppose, and struck my comments after your edits.  As I have not gone over the rest of the article I cannot enter either a support (as you suggest), or oppose.  Kablammo (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kablammo. After extensive commentary, the FAC on Mauna Kea has been given a restart by Karanacs. I'm now a conom and noted you had been a reviewer, so thought I would ask if you would consider revisiting and commenting on its current version. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well?
Any suggestions so far? I'm clearly not all the way through, but any ideas for improving the first six sections? --Moni3 (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Will check later-- gotta run. Looks good but all I did was skim and old eyes noticed the typo, so I checked source.  Kablammo (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Moni, I have some thoughts (which I have yet to write down). Where should I put them?  Have you now gone beyond the first six sections?  Kablammo (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The last two sections I can't complete yet. The sources that were in there I removed for not being the best. Some of the issues are fixed, but not all. I also have yet to go through a book about how the unique public rhetoric played out in the international, black, and local Mississippi press, so I think I'll be improving any mention of how the inter-state and racial drama unfolded in newspapers. Don't let that stop you, though. Feel free to make suggestions or ask questions. I just started reading about this in depth several days ago, and there are some things I don't quite understand yet. My talk page or the article talk page will do, I guess. --Moni3 (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: I'm about 95% done now. Would love to know your thoughts. --Moni3 (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits to James Joyce
The book you referred to was one of the major sources for my edit. I think moving the edits to elsewhere in the article would be fine with the caveat that there be a short sourced sentence in the current spot saying that many believe Joyce either reconciled in some way with his faith or even never left it. Otherwise, the remaining sentence would be misleading with regard to the critical/biographical opinion on the matter. On the discussion of whether the category "Former Roman Catholics" is appropriate, that discussion seemed a bit ill informed. As to the category "Roman Catholic writers" it seems appropriate regardless of his belief. He's virtually always included in the category especially in light of the concept of Catholic imagination. Mamalujo (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I'm sorry I missed your use of the book in your edit.  Answered further on your talk page.  Kablammo (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the state of his belief later in life, I'm not certain what my opinion is. Regardless of what his belief was, I think it is appropriate to put him in the category of Catholic writers, because that is typically done and because his imagination was distinctly and unequivocally Catholic. His answer to the interview question after the completion of Ulysses (Q: "When did you leave the Church" A: "That is for the Church to say.") suggests that he considered himself in some regard Catholic. And, of course, he would know that the Church's position is that no one, even an excommunicate, leaves the Church, and that while alive they are not beyond God's mercy, the Church viewing the character imparted by baptism to be indelible. Hence, I think Joyce was referring to this doctrine - which would mean to say he never left the Church (nor could he have) - the degree of his communion with it being the only real issue. As to the needed edits to article you mentioned, I may attempt those, if someone else doesn't get to it first. Thanks for the message. Cheers. Mamalujo (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

1997_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team
Please note my co-nominator's involvement and reconsider your objection that is not based on the content of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Mechanical filter
I have done some work to the lede of mechanical filter and replied to you at the FAC. Would you please revisit your comments at Featured article candidates/Mechanical filter/archive1 and let me know whether you still feel there is a problem. Thanks,  Sp in ni ng  Spark  18:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Acheron class torpedo boat
Somebody screwed up when the chose the hook. There was an ALT1 that was much better, and the ALT1 - not the hook that ran - was the one that was approved. But somebody grabbed the original hook anyway. Sigh! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 21:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what my comments and links show. I did not chase down who selected the wrong hook for the main page-- I saw no point in it.  On referencing, there can be a lesson here- something that seems self-evident to those familiar with the material and the source, may be opaque to others.  Here, the fact that the footnote referred to one of the items in the bibliography was evident to the writer, you, and me (I have used material from that same institution), but not to an outsider.  It is best to remove ambiguity.  Regards,  Kablammo (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Offer of co-operation
Kablammo, we seem to have some shared interests and work together well. If you ever want a hand, need something sorted that you think I'd be good at or want to start a co-operative project, just feel free to ask. I'm not always around, but when I am, I'll gladly help. Shem (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And our attitudes are the same; I could have written the above about you. I'm a dilettante here, with a variety of interests, but will gladly help you if you wish.
 * I have an idea for a collaboration on a subject of mutual interest-- I will get back to you when (and if) I'm ready.
 * As for this version: at least we could read the drawing!
 * Best wishes, Kablammo (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

FAC concerns
Thank you for the background to your list of questions. As I mostly edit and have an article in the FAC process, I don't want to get into the discussion on the talk page. However, from my perspective I hope would be addressed.

First, I believe that placing the onus upon nominators (for showing intellectual property issues have been resolved) is yet one more barrier discouraging nominations. Given the problem of few "reliable" reviewers, fewer nominations may seem fine in the short-term. In the long-term, however, I don't think getting fewer articles improved and submitted to GA or FA staus is a desirable thing. As it is now, verification of the copyright status seems a more appropriate job for reviewers (i.e., double-checking the article). Regardless of whether a review of copyright status comes from reviewers, nominators or both, there must be clearer guidelines (approved by Wiki's legal staff) and approved tools that can be accessed to show/verify that some level of "due diligence" has been performed.

Second, I don't know of any lawyer who would allow a client to make a certification of an article without a legal review of the contents—and particularly to an article created my multiple, sometimes anonymous, authors. Mine would have a fit if he knew that I made any statement even vaguely appearing to certify any such thing, even with caveats I inserted. In my opinion, that will be an unreasonable demand of nominators if permanently implemented. It would be far better for Wiki's attorneys to come up with some determination as to what we can show as due diligence, and then provide tools for doing that. We cannot expect or want editors, nominators and reviewers to provide legal opinions or interpretations. Even if some editor claims to have legal training, that cannot be verified—and even if it could be, we are in no position to evaluate the quality of their opinions. Nor is it reasonable to have editors, nominators or reviewers to put themselves at risk by making a statement of certification. What must be possible and desirable is for Wiki's counsel to provide clear guidelines and to back that up with sanctioned, easy-to-use tools for editors, nominators and/or reviewers to employ to perform that level of diligence (perhaps including some sort of tag with a date stamp to show when it was done).

As you may have noticed when posting your question on the Cabral FAC, that nomination still has an unresolved challenge as to the copyright status of some of the images used. In this, some of the information demanded seems to be of a fine granularity which makes an absolute determination impossible. As would be the case for most contributors, the extent of my tools to verify copyright is limited to the search facilities at Google Books and the US Copyright Office websites. However, the best those searches give is not enough to satisfy the information demanded by the reviewer there. Since copyright on images is related to copyright on text, I think it would be good to combine these for any guidelines and tools which are developed to address the level of diligence we need to perform. Sorry for the long post, which arises partly from my own frustration at what seems to be headed towards a byzantine and almost unworkable process (IP law itself is a huge mess, IMO). If Wikipedia's position for encouraging greater openess and access is to be preserved, the process needs to be easier for contributors (both editors and reviewers). If you can detect the essence of my concern through my tedious prose and think it germane, you might raise it as an issue. &bull; Astynax talk 18:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your note. I have some familiarity with your work; you had asked me to look at Acra, and when I took the time to do so in detail I found Hamiltonstone had ably addressed any quibbles I had.  It is an excellent and and interesting work.  Congratulations on the main page appearance.


 * First (as in your schema above), the burden initially and ultimately is on writers. Who contributes the content, vouches for it.  We must impress on writers the importance of copyright and plagiarism policies.  Nominators should also satisfy themselves that FA criteria are met.  They, and someone in the review process, should use reasonable efforts to check for plagiarism and copyright violations, but no one other than the writer has any responsibility for copyright violations of which that nominator or reviewer was unaware.  The writer is responsible; someone who knowingly ignores such violations has some ethical responsibility, but a mere nominator or reviewer who is not aware of such violations should not be held responsible in either a legal or ethical sense.  Both nominators and reviewers may be able to use some tools which may be added to the FA toolbox to assist them in detecting violations, but there is no way to assure that all violations will be detected.  The bottleneck in the FA process is the lack of reviewers, which will not be helped by the intemperate language and unrealistic demands now floating around Wikipedia.


 * Second, I am also uncomfortable with the legal-sounding term "certification", but doubt that it is used in a legal context.  Wikipedia's attorneys are unlikely to participate in guideline development, but I could be wrong.  There is however an excellent corps of copyright-conversant Wikipedians who likely will assist in process guidelines, should any actually develop.  The substantive guidelines already exist.


 * I chose your present nomination to ask my questions for two reasons: (1) it was near the bottom of the list, and in the present climate FA delegates may be "gunshy" about promotions without assurance of copyright compliance, and (2) the article's sources are all paper, many in Portuguese.  Accordingly it presents a problem overlooked by those demanding FA review of the sources:  How can a reviewer unfamiliar with the source language, to whom the sources are unavailable in any event, review those sources?  The answer of course is that he or she cannot — we likely have to rely on other indicia of reliability, including trust in the good faith of the writer. That trust can be created or enhanced by explict questions to, and answers from, the writers.


 * It is unfortunate that questions on images for your FAC still remain. If a map is based on another contributed map released by the contributor (if that is what is here), we should give credence to the release of rights to one's own work unless evidence indicates otherwise.  You may have to proceed with the article with some of the challenged images removed.


 * Regards, Kablammo (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward on IP certification
Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates; momentum seems to have stalled at WT:FAC. My idea is to create a page that would be useful across all content review processes, and where we would have a centralized registry so we don't have to clutter each nomination with the same questions to repeat nominators. I'm not sure how we would name the page, so I've put it in my userspace for now-- feel free to edit. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See also User:MLauba/Signpost definitions, an upcoming Signpost article. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) Done, edit at will.  (2)  Will look at it.  Regards,  Kablammo (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fat Man
The comment allegedly posted by Fat Man was actually posted by a troll who was trying to get Fat Man in further trouble by pretending to be his sock. That's the reason it was removed and why the page was semi'd. Please don't feed the IP troll by re-posting its message. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * i don't have any sort of relationship with TFM but always watched his talk page for all the playground drama. I was curios as to how you know it was not TFM behind the IP and what sort of "further trouble" TFM can get into?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The checkuser Alison stated it was not Fat Man who posted from that IP. There have been numerous occasions when rogue editors have impostored an already-blocked editor, hoping to fool the community into thinking the editor was defying its block by socking, and thus inviting further sanctions, such as an outright ban. If an editor pretends to be another editor, it gets blocked, and its entries should be removed based on WP:DENY. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * how would a CU prove anything in this instance? Its not going to match TFM's IP in any case. It's either some douche impersonating TFM from Atlanta or TFM himself on an airplane.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going by what the checkuser said. If you disagree with the checkuser, take it up with her. Either way, the IP comments on his page must go. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the former that I was curious about, which has not been explained satisfactorily. What happens with his talk page I care little about and will not providing my opinion, unless I'm greatly compensated. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I trust Alison to know what she's doing. If you don't, feel free to take it up with her. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * as she said...-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That wasn't Alison talking, that was another admin. And by semi-protecting, that's to keep IP stuff off the page - such as the stuff Kablammo restored. It would be best if Kablammo would revert it out, but if he won't, then I'll have to bring it up on ANI and get a ruling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I reckon I won't have to, as an admin just reverted it; and that should be the end of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * BB, for someone who spends so much time on ANI, you really don't seem to understand how CU works ... since TFM was on a plane, there is no way the IP could be related to him. You have entirely misunderstood and misquoted Alison.  Please, please, PLEASE go do something useful and lower the fixation on TFM.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Context
Here is the edit in question:


 * Happy Holidays to The Fat Man!


 * Fat Man:


 * Thank you for your holiday message, which I quote:
 * "Hi everyone. I would like to extend happy holidays to EVERYONE, even people I previously mistreated and called 'dumb' and 'douche' and things of this nature. Even Courcelles. How am I evading my block?  I got Wi-Fi ON AN AIRPLANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm living it up at 10,000 metres.   But don't you dare block this IP; there are several other prominent Wikipedians on this flight, and they would like to edit as well, so it's not fair to punish them for the sins of the tubby.   Happy Christmas, Merry Kwanzaa and kisses to all of your wives. I bear no ill will toward anyone, and if you never unblock me I WILL NOT BE SAD.  Pa rum pa pum pum.--12.130.119.108 (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)"
 * While the reasons for removal of this message and the 55-hour block of the airline's IP elude me, I will not characterize them, as that would not be in keeping with the spirit of the season and your message. 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.


 * Best wishes for the holiday season. Kablammo (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This post on TFM's talk page has now been removed (for the second time) on the suspicion that the IP is in fact someone else, who is imitating The Fat Man, and trying to get him in further trouble. To be sure, many folks with shiny new stars, and perhaps some others, have an unhealthy obsession with TFMWNCB and it is not surprising that one would engage in such tactics. It however is not clear to me that the existence of such a person, coupled with an edit by an IP, necessarily means that the person made the edit. It has been decades since I took logic but something seems to be missing.

In any event, The Fat Man's talk page is now free of the offending post and my reply. This page, of course, is not. It memorializes either (a) that I have been duped, or (b) that folks whose antennae are perhaps unduly sensitive have jumped to conclusions. In any case, my sentiments are clear: Wikipedia is a poorer place without The Fat Man, and I for one hope that wherever he is, he has a peaceful holiday season. Kablammo (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC) italicized suffix added. Kablammo (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ahem ... "poorer place with The Fat Man" ? :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * poorer place without, of course. Thank you for pointing that out.  I will mention the issue when I get my head examined.  Kablammo (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He treated wikipedia as a joke, and he got what he gave. That's the nature of "Karma", don'cha know. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, he was deadly serious about FAs, BLP, and assisting other users. He did have some trenchant parody on shallow egomaniacs who troll for compliments and folks who spend all their time expressing opinions on the drama du jour instead of, you know, actually improving articles.  What the overblown histrionics surrounding his block have demonstrated is that his parodies, which by their nature are overstatements, were if anything somewhat restrained.  Kablammo (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since he wouldn't do what was necessary to avoid getting blocked, I have to figure that he wasn't really serious about anything connected with wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, ya figgered wrong again. Please stop speculating, and get on to something useful ... it would be most appreciated.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

12.130.119.108 was me
I was editing from a plane, but now I'm on the ground, editing from my iPhone. Would appreciate if someone restored kablammo's holiday wishes. Love, tfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.143.86 (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above is obviously another impostor, and will soon be blocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the post on his talk page was from TFM.

Several weeks ago I e-mailed TFM for the first time, through the Wikipedia e-mail system, on a matter unrelated to any of this nonsense. He has now e-mailed me, confirming that he was on a plane and did post from 12.130.119.

Now I ask you: How does allowing these posts harm the Wiki? Or have we declared him a suppressive person, whom we must shun, and to whom we should not be yoked? Kablammo (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take Alison's word over his. In any case, socking and impostoring are not allowed. The alleged quality of the posts are irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) And apparently over mine. Why don't you ask Alison what she checked, as opposed to what she concluded? And are you saying that identifying himself as the author of a post from an IP is "impostering"? Kablammo (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Checkuser information is confidential. And if you believe anything Fat/BErD tells you, you should have your head examined. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Seriously, you should understand the nature of Checkuser by now ... please stop misquoting Alison. Clearly an airplane IP cannot be shown by CU to be related to TFM, unless he spends all his time on that airplane.  BB, TFM was fun; you are not.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Alison said they were not related, and I trust her judgment. As far as TFM being "fun", well, he chose to be indef'd, and that was certainly fun. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course the IP he edited from on an airplane is not his home IP. Why don't you ask Alison about that? Kablammo (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)