Jump to content

User talk:Fred the Oyster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Freakee73 (talk | contribs) at 23:37, 16 April 2010 (Go FTO!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  • The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it.
—George Bernard Shaw
  • The only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it... I can resist everything but temptation.
—Oscar Wilde
  • Life is too serious to be taken seriously.
—Fred the Oyster

Adding proper tags to uploaded picture file

Hello, I am new to uploading content to Wikipedia and I'm afraid I do not know how to add the tags you have requested. I checked the page that has the file on it and can't see any way to add anything such as {{GFDL-self}} . The photo in question is of a 1927 revue program, original copyright expired, and I own the program. I created the picture myself in order to illustrate the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ANightinSPainprogram.jpg#file

If someone could please tell me *how* to edit the tags, I could perform an action for you. Thanks...

thanks

...for that. A good compromise. You should read the article as it was a while ago, before I edited it. Horrific, things like this should never be touted on Wikipedia's front page. Parrot of Doom 12:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been watching that video. Horrifying, but I'm not sure that the benefit of hindsight is making me think the soldiers were amped up and wanted some action. BTW wasn't it the photographer on the phone? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself almost completely unmoved by it. Its all very well for me to sit here in my warm house and judge the actions of others, but I'm always aware of the lack of context that videos like this demonstrate. The whole thing reminds me of the argument over the Belgrano. Suffice it to say that those photographers knew the risks, and the helicopter crews seemed to me to be doing their job. It's a big can of worms. Parrot of Doom 13:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. Personally I wouldn't have fired as I didn't see anything overtly deadly and no-one was actually attacking the helicopter, especially given that it was about a mile away. On the other hand I don't know what their briefing instructions were or their rules of engagement criteria.. In any case, for you and I it just looks like a scene from Call of Duty. There's no adrenalin, there's no nerves, there's not even any go get 'em feelings because we're soldiers and that's what we're trained (brain washed?) to do. I'd have been happier if there'd been a chainsaw, but I suppose a 30mm cannon is close to being a BFG :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, people rarely attack artillery units, but they're there for a reason. Same with the helicopters, if you have ground forces moving around then the choppers go in first and sweep the place clean. They were probably over a mile away, but who knows where the ground forces were? Very dangerous to speculate, and Wikileaks may come out of this looking a little bit biased. Parrot of Doom 13:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MEDCAB banner

Hi, I gave some text for this at GraphLab. Do you have enough info now? Are you willing/able to take this on? cheers, Rd232 talk 21:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'll try to get it done this weekend. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks. Rd232 talk 23:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

freddie mercury article edit

i just wanted you to know that wasn't me, it also wasn't me who edited that japanese article 168.99.144.58 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Livesy

If you feel that way about the images in Aaron Livesy then go and look at the John Paul McQueen article, not alot needed there Dannyboybaby1234 (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kontras

I noticed that you commented on the Adam Kontras AFD page. Since the AFD page conversation has been leaning to the references and claims being not notable, as per Wikipedia standards. Should there not be a discussion on the pages that are used to reference this issue of notability as well. I found that on the 'Duke Fightmaster show' page there is an interview refenced where in said interview it was stated that Wikipedia was the source of the interviewers assumption that Kontras is the 'first video blogger'. If the Wikipedia standards for notability are not followed on his page, then this link on The Duke Fightmaster show is equally not notable. Further, on the 'video blogging' page, there are references to Kontras being 'The first video blogger' and this is supported by equally dubious references. Should not all of these claims be removed and/or discussed until such time as notability may be established? It still seems, as with the old pattern that Kontras is trying to be famous for trying to be famous. While this has been attempted to some success in the past, by the likes of people like Perez Hilton and the like, They were covering subject matter that was of some importance, or at least interest to a greater calibre of individual. I tried to get this into a discussion forum for removal, and anything I attempt gets reversed, and then I am attacked for vandalism, as this all was turned at one point to being against to being against me, Charles Groves, and not the matter at hand; the page and verified notability of Adam Kontras, which is what I was pressing to begin with, albeit extremely. I do feel very passionate (perhaps as i intoned too passionately) about this and would just like to see the record put in order as to all of this, and have verifiable sourses, and notability issues addressed as per Wikipedia standards. Any help you could provide will be greatly appreciated. Yes I know that I am not impartial, and as such wanted to have such information in the general discussion forum, and have the standards adhered to. 24.125.217.58 (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for violating our policy on living persons and also treating Wikipedia as a battleground. You've had a lot of feedback on this and you're not listening. This is by way of a final warning. We are serious about this: use of Wikipedia to insult people will not be tolerated. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So where have I insulted someone? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you're a fucking idiot. The comment for which you blocked me wasn't an insult, it was a play on words and wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, just taking the piss out of words used in an article. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given your actions I'd say it was extremely accurate. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt you would. And as I know from my own personal experience, you're allowed to think it but not say it. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm being blocked for something I haven't done then I may as well do something that deserves the block. As I say you're a fucking idiot for not understanding the difference between wordplay that didn't refer to any person living or dead and an insult to a living person. I'd say that was factually correct. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected your talk page for 3 days due to personal attacks towards JzG. Please take this time to think about your block and decide whether or not you're willing to contribute more constructively. You may submit an unblock request on this page once the protection as expired. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the block is just for 24 hours, I've reset the talk page protection to coincide. No opinion on either the block or protection.--Chaser (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Do not delete Tim Song (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fred you are absolutely a Wikipedia hero, some of your edits are simply genious, and insightful. If some cannot handle your tone, they need a class on saying what you mean, quite frankly I find it refreshing. 24.125.149.247 (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved admin, I think it's a bit premature to block Fred indefinitely. His previous incarnation was blocked, not banned, so it's not strictly against the rules to start over with a clean slate. While I agree that some of his comments and edits have been ill-advised, I still think his contributions outweigh the harm done, and I wouldn't categorize this as an abusive sockpuppet. I don't see why the block needs to extend past the original 24 hours. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And neither do I. I'd like to see some evidence of what harm Fred has caused that warrants the extension of a 24-hour block for a fairly minor misunderstanding to an indefinite block. Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Fred was one of the finest contributors over at WP:GL, it would be such a shame to lose another wikigraphist. Fallschirmjäger 00:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks are meant to prevent disruption, so it will be interesting to see what evidence, if any, the blocking admin can provide of disruption. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Kafziel, it most certainly is very much against the rules for any person to use a sockpuppet for block evasion. WP:CLEANSTART doesn't apply, since there was an indefinite block on WH. To Malleus, to be honest I didn't think that Fred and WH were the same person either until I looked at Fred's earliest contributions; I have trouble believing that a brand new editor who has never used Wikipedia before would report someone for hounding WebHamster on their very first day. I mean, their first edits to Wikipedia (after adding Twinkle to their monobook?!) were to revert changes to WH's user subpages. Fred's account was created, coincidentally, while WH was serving his very first block. It doesn't really get any more obvious than that. -- Atama頭 00:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but perhaps you also miss the point. The block is of a username, not of a person. It's astonishing that so many seem blind to the obvious. Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't block only usernames, except in rare cases like WP:U violations for people who aren't being otherwise disruptive (in which case we block that account and actually encourage the person to make a new account). Generally, when we block, we block the person behind the account; that's why block evasion isn't tolerated. WH=Fred, so WH's disruption is Fred's disruption. A case can be made that WH/Fred has done enough good to merit being welcomed back into the community, but that case has to be made to the community at large. Right now, WH (and now Fred) is blocked indefintely and no admin is willing to unblock, which is a de facto ban (see WP:INDEF for the policy). If Fred shows undue defiance throughout the process, though, it's doubtful that there would be success in that. I'm actually not against giving someone a second chance, and at least I'd be willing to hear out you, Fred, or anyone else who'd make that argument (WP:ANI might be the best place to do so, dramafest as it may be, or perhaps WP:AN). -- Atama頭 01:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that's an absurd argument, as we're all editing pseudonomously. Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(←) It has been the long-standing practice to block block-evading sockpuppets - except for the soft username blocks, the block is against the person, not the username. Or are we not allowed to block Grawp sleepers until they actually engage in vandalism? If you want to propose such a radical change to standard practice, WT:Blocking policy and WT:Sock puppetry are that way. I have restored WebHamster's talk page access. Should they wish to be unblocked, they can make a request there. Tim Song (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an incredibly bad block to make, as Fred is one of the better contributors on here. I would ask the powers that be to rethink this. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a "community ban". I've been indefinitely blocked by one admin with vague support from a couple of others. As an admin don't you think you should understand the difference between a block and a ban? You were the one who announced on AN/I WH as having been "banned". Way to go, there's no POV there is there? This is a perfect example of why admins are not to be trusted. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a few explanations and comments should be in order. Firstly I will not be asking for an unblock either as Fred or as WH. The following explanation should make it clear why.

The reason WH is blocked is because I deliberately depth-charged the account with behaviour I knew would end in an indefinite block. The reason for this is that I was being stalked by a nutter from Plymouth who was tying to out me, give my family's details and various other psychotic and obsessive behaviour. This was made clear on my talkpage, yet surprisingly the only actions WP admins wanted to take was berate me for my relatively harmless behaviour about Gere's gerbil. I have no respect or confidence in 99% of WP's admins and as such I would, out of principle, not ask any of them for help or support in having a clean start. I did not want an account where anyone could link it to WH. WH had to effectively die (the melodramatic part of me preferred it to be in flames, so sue me). Now that Fred is linked to WH then there is absolutely no reason for me to want that account to be unblocked.

I do take exception to several things though, firstly describing WH as being "banned" on AN/I is incorrect and prejudicial, having the sock-puppet (before now) being described as being "confirmed" is also incorrect and prejudicial. There was no CU, no SPI and absolutely no concrete evidence that Fred was indeed a sock-puppet. There was merely conjecture, supposition and guesswork. There was also a railroad going on. I was blocked for 24hrs, which I didn't have a problem with, then an hour after my last comment, Ryan Postlethwaite waded in with an absolutely unnecessary and unfounded 3 day talk page block thereby denying me any chance of responding to any charges laid against me.

Now the biggie. I'd like anyone to prove or demonstrate that FtO has been an abusive or disruptive sock-puppet. I actually believe I've been a conscientious and valuable contributor. I have spent hours producing illustrations that would have cost £100s or even £1000s in the real world. In the two years and 4000+ edits this account has been running this is my first block, and even then it was purely because a humour-deficient admin didn't understand an admittedly non-PC joke.

At this moment in time I don't really know if I want to come back to WP given the way I've been treated. Incidentally I should point out that I've been editing here since Oct 2003 so I've done my time and in the long run have made my own little impact in making WP a better place. I'm not sure I want to waste another second of my time or effort on it. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are proper ways to start anew. Getting your main account blocked by disruption is not one of them. Tim Song (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really address Fred's points, one of which is discussed here. I asked the blocking admin for more detail, but little was forthcoming. I didn't ask further as I didn't see the point once Fred was blocked as a sockpuppet, but his comments have cast a different light on matters. Right now it seems to me as though a constructive editor is blocked over a matter of bureaucracy, nothing more. Parrot of Doom 09:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given my mistrust in, disgust at, and lack of confidence in admins and WP bureaucracy there was no way I was going to go through the "proper" channels. Due to admins total lack of interest and unhelpfulness I had to find my own solution (part of which helped make my talk page inaccessible to me). --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out before, Fred, per WP:INDEF you're banned. As it states in the policy, "If no administrator is willing to lift the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community." That is exactly the situation you're in now. -- Atama頭 16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not exactly the same situation. I don't believe in running around undoing other admins' decisions without serious cause, but if the blocking admins agreed (and if Fred was so inclined) I would be willing to lift the indef block myself on either the original account or this one. However, I've been burned before for supporting users who turned out to not give a damn one way or the other, so I'm not going to force the issue. If Fred doesn't want to edit, I don't blame him. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That has been made clear since I posted that, from both Floquenbeam, and now I myself am not opposed to an unblock. As you said though there's no point anymore. -- Atama頭 21:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a point, whether Fred chooses to use this account again or not, and the point is that it's the right thing to do. Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can he still write on this talk page? --Shandristhe azylean 16:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We usually let blocked editors use their talk page to communicate with administrators and others, to voice their concerns and to explain their actions, also to request an unblock. Only when the talk page is abused is its use revoked (as it was a couple of days ago for 24 hours). -- Atama頭 17:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all semantics. That "if no admin is willing..." wording has always struck me as meaning whatever the quoter wants it to mean. Everybody makes a big deal about ban vs. block at RFA's, and you get slapped down if you don't specify the difference noted in the policy page, but by this interpretation, they're basically the same. In almost all cases, no admin is unilaterally going to overturn an indef block, so indef block = banned in pretty much all cases according to this argument. So, I'm an admin. I'm willing to unblock. I would right now, except consensus seems to be against it, and I won't just substitute my judgement for others'. Still, since I'm "willing to unblock", he's not banned anymore.

    Similarly, the whole "name is blocked vs. person is blocked" argument doesn't hold up. We don't allow someone who's been blocked to create a new account and start right up where they left off. Still, if he comes back under a new name and edits productively, we shouldn't care, and we likely won't ever find out. We should only care if they create a new account and resume being disruptive. FtO appears to have been productive, and except for a poorly thought out joke and an occasionally too-sharp tongue, has been a big help around here. The only reason the link was made to WH was because of early editing indiscretions, not because he repeated WH's trolling (which, by the way, I'm not condoning).

    So, there are a couple of ways forward. We could discuss the wisdom of allowing Fred to start a new account under another name without fear of being blocked for being himself. I, for one, think it would be a good idea. Or, since he doesn't appear to care much what we say, we could just accept that he will, if he wants, create a new account, and if he edits productively with it, we'll never know. If he puts up a picture of a woman's crotch on his userpage, he'll be reblocked. If he continues to do what FtO has been doing (minus the unwise jokes in the middle of a BLP nightmare), we all win. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be for that, Floquenbeam. I'd like it if Fred made an effort to be civil, but I can't overlook the positive contributions he has made. He's come clean about being WH in the past, and that counts a lot for me. I don't know if there are enough other people who'd be willing to support giving him another chance, but we won't know without trying. Do you think this idea should be brought to WP:AN first? Should we unblock Fred, or unblock WH, or should a new account be made (which clearly links to the first two accounts)? I'm totally open to ideas here. -- Atama頭 17:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would certainly support unblocking Fred. His help in protecting Pink Floyd-related articles against vandalism and stupidity has been invaluable, and his artistry speaks for itself. He's also a welcome dose of common-sense in an arena often dominated by spoilt children. Parrot of Doom 17:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (e/c) Well, to be honest, I'm fairly sure it's not up to us, and is going to be option #2. If I understand correctly, he doesn't want a link to his old account to avoid stalking. If he wants, whether we "approve" or not, he'll create a new account; that's nearly impossible to stop. As long as there aren't problems, we'll never know. All I guess I'm saying is, that new account shouldn't be hunted down and blocked just for being him; it should be blocked if it's disruptive, and not blocked if it isn't. The only time knowledge of the old account history should be "fair game" is if he's disruptive, we shouldn't have to go thru the 1 day, 2 days, 1 week, etc. series. But I don't think he'll do that, so it's more a theoretical problem than a practical one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're suggesting we just turn a blind eye to any future socks, give a wink and ignore them? I know that there's an unwritten but understood rule that an editor who is evading a block and/or ban who keeps his nose clean and stays out of trouble is left alone. That's done so whether we like it or not, because we just can't tell that a person is a sock automatically. After all, Fred would probably be free to edit today if he didn't rub people the wrong way and bring scrutiny to his edit history (which revealed the connection with WH). I'd be much more comfortable with an official "pardon" from the community, but I guess with the stalking situation the clandestine approach might be best. It's a real shame that we can't do things officially but your approach might be all that we can do. -- Atama頭 18:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're absolutely correct, Malleus, that it should be up to Fred. However, Fred made himself clear already, and I admit that I've ignored that somewhat, that's my mistake. Fred does not want to be associated with either this account or his previous one. Unblocking this account would do no good if Fred doesn't want to use it anymore. Since he has been "outed" as being the same person, if he is worried about his personal safety, I understand that. I can't support block evasion or sockpuppetry, but neither would I be eager to hunt Fred down if he did come back under the radar. I guess that's all that is appropriate for me to say. -- Atama頭 18:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (e/c) Because right now I'm the only admin there are only one or two admins who supported an unblock, and it isn't just my call, and he hasn't requested one; in fact, he's said above he won't. Unblocking would be fine with me if I detected a consensus somewhere to unblock, or even a lack of consensus to keep blocked; I'm not sure his talk page is a great place to get that, and I'd like to avoid an ANI "discussion", so I don't want to jump thru those hoops if Fred isn't interested. If he is interested, I'll do the necessaries about trying to get a consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that you and I both know that the "consensus" will always lie with the civility warriors, so it's obviously down to whether or not Fred wants to start another account. Nothing more to be said here I suppose. Malleus Fatuorum 18:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the fish.

Ultimately wikilawyering is not the answer to this as that is what led to this situation in the first place. Even if they are unblocked I will neither edit with FtO nor WH. Although my likely option would be to come back as another sock there's not much chance of that happening either. Partly because of a total lack of enthusiasm on my part but mainly due to the fact that I am now outed. If a new editor suddenly starts churning out illustrations, and/or starts saying things as they are instead of how people want them to be then sooner or later I will be outed again. I am who I am. I'm an autistic who doesn't have it in me to be any other way. So in the end I've lost a hobby and you guys have lost an in-demand graphist. All in all quite a successful sequence of events from certain viewpoints. I'll leave it to people's own consciences to figure out if the project is better off or worse off. From my PoV I can always find another hobby and I can now spend the time being paid for my illustrations and image skills. For the people who've tried to support me, I'm incredibly grateful and not a little humbled. And if there is going to be a wiki-piss-up in Manchester I would hope you'd let me know. The FtO email account will be checked from time to time so all you have to do is email me. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I thought that might be your reaction. Can't say I'm any happier than you about the way this played out, stinks not a little to me. Belle Vue will just have to on the back burner again for now I suppose. Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, a recent comment {which I took to be directed at an IP editor who had complained about the picture of a homeless man) from the admin who blocked me for ill-advised comments. One rule for one, one rule for another as usual on the 'pedia. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Call that a knife? That's a knife. – iridescent 06:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very definitely a knife cobber. Not that will make any difference of course. Guy still has his bit and I have a large blue box. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the large blue box above testifies that is total bollocks and you know it. The block that preceded this outing was unjustified, the talk page access block was unjustified and the indefinite block of FtO was unjustified. Although I was/am a sock-puppet I was neither disruptive nor abusive. Meanwhile this will all be brushed under the table in a few days (if it hasn't already) and life will go on with a fuckwit continuing as an admin and the project one graphist short. All in all a victory if ever there was one. I hope you can see where my distrust and lack of confidence in admins comes from. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A modest proposal

Oyster/Hamster, since you are primarily a media editor how about hopping over to Wikimedia Commons where your skills would be valued and appreciated, and where things are usually a bit more mellow? I happen to be an administrator on that project, so ping me (preferably in advance) if you'd like guidance. If that goes smoothly for a few months we'll talk about getting your editing status straightened out over here. Just please respect the block here while it remains in place: the mixed message some people like to send about that has a way of backfiring, as you've seen. Swim with the current, not against it. The tide turns if you're patient. Best wishes, Durova412 19:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about this...

I know you said above that you don't trust administrators - well, I can't do much to alleviate that concern, but I do have an idea if you're willing to put your views about administrators to one side for a moment. Real world stalking is a serious issue, so let's try to do something which will stop you being stalked, but allow you to carry on here. How about we get approval for you to start a new account (I can't see it being too hard - I think the community will be willing to give it a go), on the proviso that you tell 2-3 administrators your new account name so they can monitor and even perhaps mentor you off-wiki. We could obviously come up with 2-3 names of administrators you're happy with an take it from there. Nobody else would have to know apart from those administrators. How does that sound? Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or.... You could create FTO as an administrator. It seems his grasp on the rules and procedures Wiki, are superior than most. (barring, of course, the request to being unblocked procedure) His edits have been 99.9% dead on. It seems the only issue here is that someone became offended. It happens! Move on! Fred you are the dogs bollocks! Charles F Groves 23:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_the_Oyster&oldid=356485928"