User talk:Objective

But do they fit
Somewhere in the infinite space outside of said box? 23:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * My views are of a higher dimension than 2, which is how we try to define non conforming political views (social/economic). It doesn't work for me :) Objective (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Box" is usually three-dimensional. What dimensions do your views operate in? 01:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
01:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I lost my train of thought again
Hey there! I stopped by Stabby's talkpage to give my honest thoughts on what he wrote in the Saloon bar, and I saw what you wrote there... So, you have ADHD too? What type? When were you diagnosed? If I may ask. I dunno if you've read my (in-need-of-update) userpage, but I'm a 25 year old university student from Sweden who just this spring finally set the wheels in motion and was diagnosed with adult ADHD-C (combined type). And ps, I know that it might sound a bit corny for me to try to "bond" over something as general to a person as their ADHD, but, I'm here in the name of fighting stigma and so on (and genuine interest). Besides, it wouldn't surprise me if ADHD is what fuels some of the editors here to do all they do... Or, of course, gets in the way of them doing anything. Haha. Anyhow; hello. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I do have ADHD along with other mood disorders, somewhat environmentally as well as genetically caused. Navigating mental health is a very tough road to travel sometimes and ironically in a capitalistic system only those who can afford mental health services tend to get them, leading many to reach out to organized religion in my very politically incorrect opinion. Objective (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Sysop
23:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Objective (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you started the coop
This is probably relevant to how you want to remake the vote. Also, please use just one "Yes to X/No to X/Goat" vote, or people appear to get confused (I'm one of them). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Will do. I didn't even know what a Co-op was until a couple of days ago.  This is my first engagement into the community aspect of this site.  Thanks. Objective (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's allright; I've never been cooped myself, and I've only ever had to start a coop once thus far (here's hoping I won't have to again), and that was previously this year (after having been a "silently" contributing member here for about a year). Anyhow, good luck with your coop case. Feel free to ask if anything crosses your mind. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Reply in the saloon bar
Hello Objective! As I doubt you could miss, I decided to write an at-length reply to you in the Saloon Bar.

Now, I just wanted to point out to you that — as far as I'm concerned — the Saloon Bar is more of a "public venue" than individual editors' talk pages are, and as a result of this, the tone of my reply to you is (like the tone of your original Saloon Bar comment that I'm replying to there) a bit more debate-y and polemic than I'd personally prefer in one-on-one communication. And the Saloon Bar reply isn't one-on-one communication, so that's fine. But this is.

And that is why I decided to write you a little something here as well; to also just tell you that I'm not personally attacking you, nor that I want you to feel bad or anything like that. Not at all. In the Saloon Bar, I just felt you took quite a big step towards "Ok guys immediately stop doing this, this and this", and thus I felt the need to take as big a step back to "No, we're here to cover hate and confusion, and those forces will not go willingly".

I don't think that what you wrote was a sign of a bad character or anything — what I took away from it personally (aside from my reply to it) was more like, "Objective is very much against the ever-present risk that unfair material could be found in articles on less notable individuals, and he's worried that RW gets sued because he cares about RW".

Likewise, I hope that what you take away from my post is something along the lines of "Percy's in this for the anti-bullying effort that resisting the growth of hateful subcultures brings", and that "Percy is also adamant that we shouldn't break the law nor get RW into hot water, but he acknowledges that hot water is often tossed at us, and that's not fair either".

Anyways, I'm not here to tell you what to take away from my reply, of course, but I'm just informing you how I thought, and — despite the long and disagreeing reply — I was not writing against you as a person, as I do consider you a friend here on the site, and I hope you trust that. All the best buddy, keep on truckin' Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Problematic Username
Is not a valid block reason. Acei9 19:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was messing with an existing block to test the software. It is a valid block reason in the drop down menu. Objective (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I Hate Libtards isn't really a problematic username and any block for such should only be for overtly racist usernames for example. But I understand you were testing. Acei9 19:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think he was originally blocked for vandalism. I'll change back to the 3 month block. Objective (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)