User talk:Reverend Black Percy

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Wave.gifY helo thar, you big, beautiful baby boy!
Looking for my David Icke sandbox? Laugh at how stupid it looks here. Play thumb war with me over it here.

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>

Contents

[edit] Biggest & most beautiful baby boy

*newspaper thwack* Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem, officer? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

and again! Don't remove talk page comments, even I know that. Christopher (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

My edit summary speaks for itself. As moderator, my madness is not without method.
Here's what does not constitute "removal" of talk page posts: momentarily (and reversibly) returning a post to sender, in order for it to be resubmitted by the original poster (at their earliest possible convenience) — though, no longer formatted improperly; i.e., in a way which violates site policy, multiple warnings from moderators and common sense, all at once.
Repeatedly filling talk pages with unsigned posts, under the above listed conditions, is to be considered wandalous.
I use the {{unsigned}} template for unsigned posts about 99.9% of the time — and I do so daily. But you have to understand that, while applying the {{unsigned}} template is a courtesy, signing one's own posts is not mere gesture — but site policy. It is expected of you, rightfully so, and before long. Indeed, proper indentation and signed posts are functionally necessary for talk pages to exist meaningfully at all.
Thankfully, instances of broken formatting is easily solvable — in the vast majority of cases — by giving the benefit of the doubt and employing the {{unsigned}} and {{sign}} templates liberally. However — crucially — the meaning of said templates is not that signing your own posts is somehow not a rule. It still is! And as moderator, it's my (sometimes thankless) job to ensure in action that the rules of the site are upheld. As moderator, I have explicitly been given a warrant to do so, by the community at large.
Indeed, the {{unsigned}} and {{sign}} templates are often sufficient to resolve things precisely because they succeed in modulating user posting behaviour to not violate site policy and talkpage integrity in the future.
It will then be apparent that, upon multiple warnings having fallen on deaf ears, asking that individual posts be resubmitted with non-rulebreaking formatting is the least intrusive way to — like the templates tried to do — modulate user post behavior towards formatting functionally. I could just as well vandal bin the repeat offender (until they cease refusing to sign) and be done with it, but I do not believe in the use of excess force (and I always trust in erring on the side of leniency).
Finally, let me be perfectly blunt. I am a contributor, like so many here, who gladly helps the community by gracefully picking up after others. I do not consider myself a martyr, but rather a decent user among many, for continually chosing to do so. I don't mind it; often, I even enjoy it.
But the moment I'm being upbraided for not doing so "enough" — met with impatience, just for not having infinite patience myself — I'm honestly left with a strong desire to simply stand up and walk away (atleast for the day). If the way I have composed myself here, as best I've been able to, has not proven enough to secure me even the benefit of doubt in your eyes, then I can only reconsider how well spent my time here is. And this is not any type of veiled threat, for the record. Quite to the contrary, consider it my open invitation to help ensure that we not take each other for granted — here, or elsewhere. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah "even I know that" wasn't necessary, there was some confusion with whether "sign your comments" meant he had to sign in and make an account which may account for some of the confusion over signing with this particular user. Christopher (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm with Rev. on this one. It isn't - and shouldn't be - our job to constantly add signed and unsigned tags to users who should have already read site policy. Vive Liberté! 17:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
"to users who should have already read site policy" being the key phrase here. Because, actually — I think we should constantly employ the {{sign}} and {{unsigned}} templates (as I happily do daily). But not in reference to the same single user account, indefinitely. Ultimately, there is no substitute to users learning — or even being made — to sign their own posts properly. The wiki format requires it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I also support Rev on this. People need to follow the rules or expect the consequences. Bongolian (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif I think we're all in agreement then, gents. Just remember to shoot the occational spitball at Fuzzy, and peace will have been restored to the valley. Jokes aside though be nice to the boy, he's like the precocious accountant I never had Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Your Opinion

I would appreciate your opinion on this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAzPWALgYo8&feature=youtu.be thanks— Unsigned, by: Kingdamian1 / talk / contribs

If nothing else, the title seems apt ("miscellaneous bullshit"). The video is short and obscure (and doesn't really stand out as remarkably funny), but its chosen "stupids" are highly missional. A muslim who doesn't understand even basic Newtonian physics, an anti-vaxxer with a depopulation conspiracy streak, etc... All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure but I believe this is Kingdamian1's YouTube channel. Christopher (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Color me impressed, if so! The cranks chosen for the vid appear to be actual cranks (i.e., appear representative of typical fringe views the reality-based community — which I'm not sure Damian is himself a member of — find to be nonsensical) rather than Darwin, Dawkins or others a creationist might (stereo)typically wish to bash. And I'll forgive any roughness of editing if I know it's babby's first video (I only ever knew how to use Movie Maker for Windows XP, so I'm not one to talk). Again, thumbs up if its from Damian. Very sensible crank picks for a Creationist, if so. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
It is his video, he linked to it in this "essay" making it clear the video was made by him. Christopher (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Wow! As such, consider my expectations for a video from Damian wildly surpassed. Thumbs up! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes... It's my channel... So you liked it???--Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure! And, importantly, your message that we need to find agreement too. RationalWiki is not all bad, even in your eyes. And you made a video I liked. Nicely done. Maybe we can understand each other even better in the future, after all. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


This is gonna be a series... so I'd appreciate your subscription and opinions... check out part 2... https://youtu.be/9FK_JcDjNT4 --Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Cookie half.jpg For demonstrating exemplary goatery in the line of duty, cosmikdebris
has awarded you a used pre-owned! and slightly stale cookie.
Ewwwwwww.
Cockroaches ate half of it.
Thanks, old timer. I never did think I would earn such a prize. For your health! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Velkopopovický Kozel.jpg For demonstrating exemplary goatery in the line of duty, Spud
has awarded you some beer. Look it has a goat on the label!
If anyone deserves this, it's definitely you. Skål! Spud (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for making me feel so appreciated! I owe you one right back. All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Goat Barnstar.png For demonstrating exemplary goatery in the line of duty, Christopher
has awarded you a Goat Star. May you enjoy good health, and be long lived and prosperous in the long tradition of goatery.
As an apology for me being a bit of a dick about the guy who wouldn't sign his comments, please accept this goat. Christopher (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Apology accepted, good buddy Th hug.gif I was feeling kinda down in the dumps that day as well, but even so, I think I managed to keep things civil. But just in case it seemed I didn't, I'm sorry too. Meaning; I didn't mean to single you out for that rant (though the rant was coming). FCP actually deserved about 80% of it (the scamp). Oh well. Thanks for the barnstar! The goat was my favorite. All the best m'boy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Why does a reverend think he knows anything about science?

Can a religious type, someone who believes in the grand sky fairy (look within these pages at the send-up Flying Spaghetti Monster) claim to be rational? Faith has no place in science.

Why don't you look at child abuse in the catholic church or its position on contraceptives. Might you also look at how Anglicans racially discriminated black people from attending its churches in the UK in the 1950s-70s?2.96.41.255 (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you have dear percy wrong. I'm not entirely certain, but I'm pretty sure his user name is a reference to an obscure Swedish... thing? Definitely not his actual profession. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@2.96.41.255 I'm sorry, but you would obviously have to ask someone with a different (read: more fitting) username about that. Preferably one along the lines of "Person who divulges truth" — seeing as how you appear to put quite a bit of stock in which assumptions you consider warranted, based on a random person's username alone. This, despite the fact that on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dogWikipedia's W.svg. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
**You are** a dog!— Unsigned, by: 2.99.74.63 / talk
No, I'm a dog, see how I sign my username! a dog (woof!) 16:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
'tis my mortal enemy, a dog! a cat (nyan!) 16:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
There's always Tom and Jerry rules, a mouse (squeak!) 18:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps 'Church of Science' (and what about Wikipedia category [1] - there do not appear to be equivalent categories for other faiths). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond Science Page

Hello. The recent activity entry for the above page's deletion caught my eye, as I'd wondered just yesterday if RW had a view on this YT channel. My search returned no results though. My apologies if I inadvertently created a not-even-stub page.Daev (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It was The Super Skeptic who created the page, I presume you're the same person? Christopher (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Nope, hadn't logged in for a while until a password reset just before my earlier post just above. Just a coincidence I guess. Daev (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why the header changed since my earlier post. Daev (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
It is mystery Th unsure.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools