The Fat Rat of Chepstow

Talk history

(December 2014-January 2015)
(January 2015-March 2015)

Hungerford massacre

This [1] edit is just plain daft. I have reverted it. Keri (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I meant the overall seriousness of the incident, the indiscriminate killings of innocent people was very much like a war crime. If my interpretation is wrong then it's wrong, but it is not silly or daft, just erroneous. --FAT RAT (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The clue is in the name: "war crime". Stick to reported facts, not your hyperbolic "interpretation". Keri (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

And stop stalking my edits to make POINTy changes. Keri (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

With regards to your comments, I am a legitimate editor here and when an editor comes on the scene who not only reverts me but does not assume good faith when it was plain obvious that this was my intention, I reserve my right to look into that person's contributions and I immediately found something of yours I believed to be flawed. No doubt looking at your attitude and willingness to "undo", I'd say a good number of your contributions are poor but I just do not have the time to run through them, that is the job of the admins. If you have evidence you are being stalked, please take it to WP:AE but for the time being, I stand by my revision until such time I am officially notified that on Wikipedia, we say the director is the author, or the producer is the make-up artist, or anything else to that effect. So long. --FAT RAT (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:BRD and undo your change. Keri (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, I had you, little sucker!!!! These months have been fucking hilarious spraying your crappy project with vandalism you will never ever find!! hahahahaha FAT RAT (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Keri (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you. --FAT RAT (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

RE

I didn't know that and I apologize Saturn star (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The Fat Rat of Chepstow. You have new messages at This lousy T-shirt's talk page.
Message added 22:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Enoch Powell

The article had not previously used the adjective "racialist" in its stable form; this was added by a brand new user with this edit [2]. When this was correctly reverted here [3] you reverted the correction and templated the editor who had fixed it. I have returned the article to the status quo ante bellum and suggest you discuss this change on the article's talk page to see if there is consensus for labelling Powell a "racialist politician". Keri (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

If your version is correct then fine, I am not party to whether he was "racialist" or not, I just witnessed an account with no userpage blanking information without leaving a summary hence the warning. --FAT RAT (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• You might also like to recheck the addition made by the same editor (User:Irishman on the wikicircuit) here [4]. Particularly the sentence which reads: "During the 1947 elections in Greenland, very little happened on the world stage, but it should be noted that David Beals has defeated the administrators of this sad project again, as the edit here is not even serious and yet the fools have been fooled once more." I note that you apparently checked this edit, and removed the link to Japan but seemingly did not see this blatant admission of vandalism. Keri (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted. I wasn't reading, just skimming over bits, the whole thing looked legit. Presumably this is User:David Beals having a joke. Not sure what to make myself. --FAT RAT (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, all's well that ends well. Keri (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Question for future refrence

is it ok to remove things from a users talkpage if it consists of personal attacks or threats? Saturn star (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes absolutely, anything deemed vandalism or inappropriate can be taken off. Much like sandbox, one's user page and user talk page gives an editor significantly more freedom but there are limits to everything. Attacks and threats are not acceptable so feel free to remove those chunks, and if anybody argues, show them this what I said. The only thing editors need to be careful with is restoring removed warnings and other things such as deletion notices. So if a blocked editor blanks his whole page, we're within our rights to restore small parts of the removed text. Thanks Saturn star. --FAT RAT (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)