Help support TMP

"Larry Dunn is still at it!!!" Topic

103 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the TMP Talk Message Board

Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board

Areas of Interest

World War Two on the Land

8,437 hits since 30 Mar 2007
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 

hurcheon30 Mar 2007 1:01 p.m. PST

Is there any way to engage this bloke to try and find out what the flip he is on about?

Streitax30 Mar 2007 1:41 p.m. PST

From what others have said, it would be a waste of time and effort. Nothing short of 4 lbs. of C4 placed in rectal defilade with a short fuze is going to stop him.

CPT Jake30 Mar 2007 1:43 p.m. PST

Better use a long fuse, other wise you'll get sprayed in pretty nasty stuff when it goes off….

SeattleGamer30 Mar 2007 1:47 p.m. PST

I know that Richard from Too Fat Lardies emailed him asking why certain rules were deleted, but others allowed to remain. Richard posted a portion of the reply from Larry on the yahoo group. Larry did not appear to be interested in dialog. He has his opinions, his opinions are facts, and thus certain rules qualify as spam and must be removed.

At this point the only way to handle this is to engage the Wiki powers that be.

BTW … the Miniatures Wargaming area is certainly not his only concern, it doesn't even look like his primary concern. There is a long list of postings (on Wiki) about plenty of other historical articles he has decided need to be edited (removing big chunks of text) because he disagrees with the text. The authors of those articles are rather frustrated by Larry as well.

Shagnasty Supporting Member of TMP30 Mar 2007 1:50 p.m. PST

Who is this yahoo?

KeithRK30 Mar 2007 1:54 p.m. PST

This isn't the first time a Wiki editor has had it go to his head and appoint themselves as some kind of Keeper Of A Sacred Trust. With themselves as final arbiter of what belongs and what doesn't.

For Sale30 Mar 2007 1:54 p.m. PST

Mild-mannered Larry Dunn by day, but…

"Wikiman" by night


Striving to protect the general public from knowing about rulesets he doesn't like and trying to prevent Bill Armintrout from receiving any public recognition…
What a hero*!

(*insert four letter word of your own choosing)

combatpainter Fezian30 Mar 2007 1:58 p.m. PST


Lol…Great pic, man!!!!

combatpainter Fezian30 Mar 2007 1:58 p.m. PST

"The Wiki man"!!!!


combatpainter Fezian30 Mar 2007 1:59 p.m. PST

Super Wik!!!

combatpainter Fezian30 Mar 2007 1:59 p.m. PST

Too bad the guy doesn't have a big W on his chest. Lol…

Tangofan30 Mar 2007 2:09 p.m. PST

And if he did we'd all know what it stood for. lol

RudyNelson30 Mar 2007 2:12 p.m. PST

Super Wikiman!! I don't care who you are, that is funny!!

aka Mikefoster30 Mar 2007 2:20 p.m. PST

GZG's New Israeli troops might work (Sorry no link). They are true "25s" so that might be an issue.

nazrat30 Mar 2007 3:27 p.m. PST

Agh! Larry Dunn controls the bug!! 8)=

aka Mikefoster30 Mar 2007 3:31 p.m. PST

All I said is that it is fun to watch this story develop through the day

ElGrego30 Mar 2007 6:44 p.m. PST

Wiki Wars – wow!!!


nvdoyle30 Mar 2007 6:54 p.m. PST

So…is this the same person as LarryDunn here? I don't think I've seen that answered yet.

nazrat30 Mar 2007 7:32 p.m. PST

I asked the same question on another thread, NV. Nobody could answer it. But if you saw multiple threads here on TMP with YOUR name in the title, wouldn't you check them out and refute the fact if it WASN'T you on Wiki? I know I would. But he's still innocent until proven guilty, I guess.

It sure sounds like him to me, though. 8)=

Javier Barriopedro aka DokZ30 Mar 2007 7:32 p.m. PST

Chances are that your and my answer is: yes.

He really is an attention-craver with something possibly gone awry in his brain.

It's called Narcisism, and can have a neurological origin.

I really hope he's sick because it would be just absolutely stupid to be doing such things just for kicks.

Tommy2030 Mar 2007 7:34 p.m. PST

Can't those whose topics he vandalizes complain to "the powers that be" and have his privileges revoked? That would seem the most appropriate response.

sneakgun30 Mar 2007 7:52 p.m. PST

He is just Rosie O'Donnell's evil twin. Ignore them.

Macaroni30 Mar 2007 8:08 p.m. PST

This guy sounds like a real Bleeped text

aka Mikefoster30 Mar 2007 9:36 p.m. PST

If Mr. Dunn Happens to read this I would suggest that he take a look at this before he does anything more editing wise


Mr. Dunn,
I would further suggest that you are one of thousands of people that are knowledgeable on this subject and any rational person would understand that they are not the sole expert or arbiter on this subject. Furthermore the whole concept of Wikipedia is consensus not just one person's opinion.

Personal logo toofatlardies Sponsoring Member of TMP30 Mar 2007 11:32 p.m. PST

Well, in view of the less than pleasant email I have just had from Mr Dunn I thought it only fair and reasonable to provide full details of the communication that we have had. People can then make their own minds up whilst in posession of as many facts as I have.

> > > > --- Richard Clarke wrote:

> > > > > Hi Larry
> > > > >
> > > > > I was wondering if you were the Larry Dunn who
> > > > wrote the article on the Battle of Seminara on Wikipedia?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard
> > > > >
> > > > Larry Dunn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that's me.
> > > >
> > > --- Richard Clarke
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Good. I note that you regularly edit pages in
> > > > Wikipedia. My interest is chiefly in the page
> > > > entitled "Miniature Wargaming" – here's a link to it:
> > > >
> link
> > > >
> > > > Looking at the history of that page I see that you
> > > > have on more than on occassion removed references
> > > to my company, TooFatLardies and our best selling
> > > rule set, I Ain't Been Shot, Mum!. For example, on
> > the 12th of December you changed a sentence that
> > read
> > > >
> > > > "For World War Two, the five most popular
> > rulesets are: Command Decision, Flames of War, I Ain't
> > Been Shot Mum, Rapid Fire, and Spearhead."
> > > >
> > > > to the following:
> > > >
> > > > "For World War Two, popular rulesets include
> > > > Command Decision, Flames of War, Rapid Fire,
> and Spearhead."
> > > >
> > > > In this instance you have clearly singled out
> I Ain't Been Shot Mum, removing it while leaving
> > all the other four rule sets in place. I was
> > wondering why you would do this?
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Richard Clarke
> > > > TooFatLardies
> > > >
> > > Larry Dunn wrote:
> > > Because Wikipedia is not an ad supplement.
> > >
> > --- Richard Clarke
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Following up on my last email I have checked the
> > > Yahoo Groups for the rule sets that you left in
> > > place on Wikipedia. Their memberships must,
> > surely, give some indication of popularity.
> > >
> > > Spearhead has 1792 members
> > > Command Decision3 has 356 members
> > > CD3 (also for Command Decision) has 204 members
> > > Rapid Fire has 779 member
> > > Our TooFatLardies list has 1200 members
> > >
> > > In view of this I would suggest that your
> removal of I Ain't Been Shot Mum from the article was
> > wrong, and I would ask you not to do so again.
> > >
> > > I would appreciate your assurance that this will
> > > not happen again.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Richard
> > >
> > Larry Dunn wrote:
> > Yahoo Groups is no indication of popularity. I
> > will not be sure to check the page to make sure you are
> > not using it for self-pormotion, a violation of
> > wikipedia policy which can lead to sanctions against you. I
> > will bookmark the page to make sure it is not
> > vandalized in that way.
> >
> --- Richard Clarke
> wrote:
> > Larry
> >
> > Your action, removing the name of our most popular
> > rule set, is more vandalism. I did not originally
> > make the statement that it was one of the five
> most popular rule sets, I have no idea who put that on
> > there. However I would suggest that you are in no
> > better position to judge which rules are popular
> and which aren't than anyone else. I quite agree with
> > your removing the statement about the degree of
> > popularity, who knows which are indeed the "top
> > five", however IABSM are, without doubt, a very
> > popular rule set. I have no intention of using
> > Wikipedia for self-promotion, however as a full
> time rule publishing business I do feel that some
> > presence on there is not unreasonable.
> >
> > If you persist in what appears to be a vendetta
> > then I will be obliged to consider our position.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Richard Clarke
> > TooFatLardies
> >
> Larry Dunn <> wrote:
> Consider away. Meanwhile, Wikipedia prohibits the
> use of the encyclopedia for self-promotion, and those of
> us who want to maintain its usefulness as an
> informational tool work very hard to keep it that
> way. Of course, there are people who would prefer to
> insert things like "Larry Dunn is a person of no
> consequence" in the encyclopedia, in an article on
> miniature waqrgaming, but that is a fair
> demonstration of vandalistic intent.
--- Richard Clarke <>

> Larry
> I can assure you that I have added nothing to
> Wikipedia with the exception of replacing I Ain't
> Been Shot Mum a couple of days ago. That was
> removed almost immediately. I have certainly not
> made any subsequent adjustments. You may note that
> I stated on TMP that I was in favour of WIkipedia as
> a source, and that I thought that it would be good
> if the quality of information on there could be
> improved. I have no inclination towards vandalism
> whatsoever.
> I would be interested to know how you decide which
> rule sets should be included on Wikipedia. What are
> the criteria that you set?
> Regards
> Richard
Larry Dunn <> wrote:

You're a liar as well as a vandal.

Continue to vandalize wikipedia and it will continue
to be reverted. Whether "this is over" is completely
up to you, as you are the vandal here, not me. The
anonymous accounts being used to vandalize wikipedia
will eventually be blocked from editing.

> > > > >

Richard Baber31 Mar 2007 12:09 a.m. PST

Blimey a bit of a meglomaniac isn`t he……..

Big Miller Bro31 Mar 2007 12:31 a.m. PST

Well at least the transcript shows that it WAS this LarryDunn and that he DOES have a bias and that he IS being a jerk about it- seems like he violates the wiki in many ways so his smug replies about the sanctity of the wiki hold no water. As for the vandalism on his account- he has Bleeped texted off so many people I imagine that there are no less than 20 or so IP addys who have had a go at him- which doesnt help the situation but when you roll in poop you tend to attract flies lol

Tarleton31 Mar 2007 1:12 a.m. PST

Maybe sad to say but, if one sad fool can alter Wikipedia content like this with apparent impunity just how valuable as an accurate reference source is it? Does it have any credibility anymore?

I shall in future view all its content with some degree of suspiscion!

For Sale31 Mar 2007 1:21 a.m. PST

He's now reached the stage that eveybody that makes a comment that he doesn't like is Richard Clarke under a pseudonym! No doubt he spent last night checking under the bed for Richard Clarke.
Most of TMP is now Richard Clark and he's probably seeing lots of Richard Clarkes in the street outside his house.
In fact his hobby has probably been ruined as everytime he looks at his wargames figures they all resemble Richard Clarke!
I expect Richard Clarke wrote this when I wasn't looking, or maybe I too am Richard Clarke ;-)
Anyone else Richard Clarke.

I think we now have a new phrase on TMP for this kind of Paranoia – Dunnism

Personal logo toofatlardies Sponsoring Member of TMP31 Mar 2007 1:22 a.m. PST

I think it's a real shame. Wikipedia is a good reference point for some very obscure subjects that otherwise would not get coverage – like Miniature Wargaming, which wouldn't get featured in, for example, Encyclopaedia Britannica. Some of the links from Wikipedia are very helpful indeed.

I really don't think Larry is doing himself or Wikipedia any favours with his behaviour. However it may be that the current format, with a seperate large list of rule sets, may well be a better arrangement than favouring any particular ones with a mention. That said it would be naiive to suggest that Flames of War or Warhammer could not be used in the body of text as examples as they are so prominent.

It does, however, show how on malicious individual can undermine the credibility of something that, in broad terms, is good.


Tarleton31 Mar 2007 1:25 a.m. PST

I just had a look at Wikipedia with a view to emailing them about his cunning stunts but could find noway to actually contact anyone at Wikipedia! Maybe this is because I am not a sign in member? But it still seems unusual.

Personal logo toofatlardies Sponsoring Member of TMP31 Mar 2007 1:27 a.m. PST

Blimey Mr Ansell, that's worrying. Well I am certainly Richard Clarke. Is anyone else me as well? Or am I someone else who thinks that he is Richard Clarke? God forbid I could actually be Richard Ansell!

And anyway, I wasn't under Larry's bed, I was out on the town with one of his elk lady-friends. Let me tell you Larry, she wasn't disappointed either. 8^D



Tarleton31 Mar 2007 1:36 a.m. PST

I'm Richard Clarke…

For Sale31 Mar 2007 1:36 a.m. PST

I'd heard that rumors that you'd been out with a moose or two

Scurvy31 Mar 2007 1:45 a.m. PST

why not just make another entry called 'wargaming with miniatures' and fill it out properly?

Matakishi31 Mar 2007 1:59 a.m. PST


Wikipedia has never had any validity, it's only ever been a curiosity. As we have seen demonstrated here, 'truth by majority consensus' doesn't work even when the majority are correct. Remember, an encyclopedia is only judged by the quality of its worst entries.

Larry Dunn has always struck me as being a sandwhich short based on the content and tone of his posts here. (I did find myself agreeing with him once but nobody's perfect) maybe we're privileged to be witnessing his final descent into madness.

I hope this runs and runs :)

Richard Clarke

Mal Wright Fezian31 Mar 2007 2:46 a.m. PST

Having seen the means by which Wilpedia gains its information on site, not long after it started, I immediately rejected it as a serious reference source. I never bother to look at it anymore during searches.

Mal.Wright…errrrr….Richard Clarke?

Tangofan31 Mar 2007 2:51 a.m. PST

NO!! I'm Richard Clarke!!

Mal Wright Fezian31 Mar 2007 3:07 a.m. PST

Ahhhh….welllll… could be I suppose…but does the real Richard Clarke do the tango with a fan? If that was on Wilkpedia we would know for sure wouldnt we?

Germy Bugger Fezian31 Mar 2007 3:13 a.m. PST

Did anyone notice he has also changed the Uma Thurman page which claimed she had size 12 feet. To the fact that she actually has size 11 feet.

Anal retentive just got scary!


For Sale31 Mar 2007 3:30 a.m. PST

Uma Thurman is Richard Clarke and he has size 12 feet.
You just can't trust Wikiman to get anything right!

Tangofan31 Mar 2007 3:46 a.m. PST

How does Mr. Dunn now the size of Uma Thurman's feet. I think we should be told!!

Matakishi31 Mar 2007 3:56 a.m. PST

How does Mr. Dunn now the size of Uma Thurman's feet. I think we should be told!!

Perhaps his voices told him?

For Sale31 Mar 2007 4:07 a.m. PST

I wonder if the figures in Larry's forthcoming miniature range will start looking like little miniature Richard Clarkes to him? ;-)

TMP link

Martin Rapier31 Mar 2007 4:31 a.m. PST

"..Wikipedia has never had any validity.."

That is a gross generalisation, some bits of it are better than others. Much of the historical stuff is fairly OK, and it is a quick & easy reference for maps etc.

Matakishi31 Mar 2007 4:39 a.m. PST

That is a gross generalisation, some bits of it are better than others. Much of the historical stuff is fairly OK, and it is a quick & easy reference for maps etc.


Larry himself is in dispute over the accuracy of maps on WP and being 'fairly ok' is not a good recommendation for a reference work.

Academically it's a joke.

MONGREL131 Mar 2007 4:41 a.m. PST

I'm Richa . . . oh never mind, everybody else has done it already . . . . :-))

Keep yer chin up Rich, everybody lurves yer rules mate :-)

Henrix31 Mar 2007 5:33 a.m. PST

Wikipedia is never a safe source of information, but it is often a good starting point when looking for information, especially when looking for information about things not in the usual dictionaries – about games, pop culture, new technology, etc.

Larry Dunn sounds like he'd be a nightmare on any forum.

bruntonboy31 Mar 2007 5:33 a.m. PST

Uma Thurman is definately not Richard Clarke, whatever sized feet she has. I quite fancy her, I don't fancy Richard- I mean have you seen the size of HIS feet?

Graham (AKA Richard)

Dave Jackson Supporting Member of TMP31 Mar 2007 6:22 a.m. PST

I have been reading with interest all of the threads on Mr Dunn, and I have come to some conclusions.

aka Mikefoster, arrogant, self centred people with huge self confidence issues rarely look at things which would show them in a bad light and require them to discover the truth about themselves.

The reason he has not engaged in any debate is blindingly obvious. He has very little confidence in his own opinions, hence no debate or explanation ("He who shows the least interest has the most power in any relationship" premise) and prefers to remain cloaked in his "fortress of solitude" merely in order to reinforce his own inflated opinion of himself and his ideas. In a public forum, like this, or better yet, the scrum of a University or other higher centre of education, his opinions and lack of defence would be rightly exposed as biased, prejudiced, unbalanced, egocentric and parochial. He has an almost adolescent predelection for "tit for tat" and retreating into a simple silence when confronted with his illogical arguments.

All the insults just reinforce his own idea of his inate superiority to the average wargamer, and serve to convince him not to respond, as that would seem to him to be lowering himself to your level.

More to be pitied actually, than scorned.

Pages: 1 2 3