User talk:Bshaw

- 05:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :) I read the welcome criteria on your talk page, much appreciated after just fixing some typos. Will get around to filling in my user page soon -Bshaw (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, you're welcome!- 20:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
--JorisEnter (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yuss lvl up. will try not 2 abuse newfound power. thx -me

Random thought
It's always nice to see an user I've welcomed stick around. - 17:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't fancy myself a quitter; gotta stick with what you start til the bloody end and all that. Don't we support blind, reckless perseverance here? B) talk 23:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In seriousness though, thanks for the welcome and interweb friendship. ^_^ B) talk 23:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome, indeed! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Rev Percy Black
Hi Bshaw, the Rev has edited my truth edit and put back his nasty defamatory lies which in time will be proven as such. He is alleged to be part of the satanic cult at Ellas childrens school. For this reason, please do not allow him to post this edit permanently , the truth needs to be out there , and justice needs to be done. There are many persons in authority who are part of this cult, this is why their cover up has initially been successful, but it WILL BE BLOWN OPEN VERY SOON, and I hope with your input against the darker forces in this world,.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Carlos casteneda / talk / contribs
 * --JorisEnter (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * On the miniscule chance you do believe what you're saying, I've assigned you some reading for homework! You could start here, here, and here. And don't go starting any more new agey cults, we've got enough of those already. B) talk 17:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * --JorisEnter (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * - 22:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Sysop
--JorisEnter (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For me???? Aw you shouldn't have B) talk 00:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Bye!
I don't know why you're leaving, but good luck on your future endeavors. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I think you meant to say "LANCB", not "LAMCB". But hey, it's your userpage. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's "Leaving And Maybe Coming Back"? 18:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I wanted to say the same thing, but having to wait half an hour kinda destroys spontaneity... I am not the Ombud's man 18:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, M is for maybe. Thanks to ikanreed et al, and for the warm welcome in general. It's time-intensive and stressful life circumstances mostly, and I realized I've been using what little time I've spent here of late to vent frustration rather than contribute meaningfully (see dumb outbursts at PB and Rob), so I'm cutting myself off for a while. If all goes well, I'll be back when I have more time and less burning rage. B) talk 00:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If only we were graced by more users like you; who "police themselves" into stepping away from the wiki — as opposed to leaning in closer to it — just when they feel their blood risk nearing a boil. And the fact that you remain observant to your own drama-to-contribution-ratio only sweetens the deal. Please tell me if your LAMCB ever changes into a LANCB; if that mournful day should ever come, please don't deprive me the right to atleast send you off with a kiss. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with the Cincinnati of this world is that when they step down, they are out of the political realm. And as your act is the RW equivalent of Cincinnatus, you will most certainly be missed for the precise reason that you are willing and able to do that. Come back soon. I am not the Ombud's man 17:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Listen. You are an overzealous, bumbling good-faith editor, or PB is right and you're a sock here to create mayhem, or you're something else. A voice in my head says, "Beware the sycophant (sock-ophant?)." Despite that, and despite the mayhem you've helped to create, I have no evidence that you're a sock. I also have no evidence of "something else", whatever that may be. Until I do, I'll continue to assume your good faith. I have enjoyed positive interactions with you in the past, and I'd like to continue to. Interpret that as you will, but don't get the impression that it or my vote against your ban somehow constitute anything more, especially an endorsement of your actions recently. And honestly, I've only been here since July and have had a mop for a week. Cincinnatus? Really? B) talk 19:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the vote
Does reading this affect how you cast your vote? If so/if not, what's your reasoning? Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting this is evidence LH and Jagulard are socks of the same person/LH is a puppetmaster? Even if they are (and after just now reading over LH's talk page and a few other tasty bits, I'm intrigued by the possibility), 1) it isn't "known" (|LH failing to deny having socks does not constitute evidence) and thus doesn't invoke community standards on sock voting; 2) banning them will do precisely nothing to stop medusavengogeitojag, assuming she exists, from continuing to rear her rancid sweaty sock heads for fucking ever; 3) I suspect that no matter how this plays out, life at RW will go on without much noticeable difference. I think your move to enforce the standards was well warranted, and I am happy to see voting rights restored to the accused. I continue to think a ban is useless, and more of an expression of community frustration than an effective policy. If there's an elephant looking over my shoulder please tell me, but right now it's unclear to me how reading that would affect my stance on the matter B) talk 01:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I can only repeat now what I have said previously. I am not Jaulard and Jagulard is not me. We are two different human beings. We have to my knowledge never met or even used the same computer. I swear this upon my honor. As to anything else, I plead the third amendment. I really don't want any soldiers quartered in my home. Even if they are sexy IDF soldiers ;-) I am not the Ombud's man 01:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Quarter, quarter, I beseech you.
 * And I must say, nor do I. If soldiers must be quartered, let it be somewhere they won't get blood on my newly waxed hardwoods. B) talk 02:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I state plainly here that I don't think that Jagulard and LH are the same person. So, the link I gave above was not about that theory whatsoever. That being said, I'm happy to hear you appreciate that I decided to voice my concerns about the voting rights. The fact that I reinstated them doesn't mean that the decision will last — I also said I will defer to the actions of the moderators on this issue. But let none say I ever approved of a kangaroo court. About the only thing I'm not torn about in this case is question of basic adherence to the voting standards. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. Sure. Then can you direct my focus? Jagulard casting a vote even though he's evidently leaving? KiwiFarms? B) talk 02:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Aside from him displaying a generally shitty attitude, my thoughts were also regarding the question of if it's worth banning a user who is volunteering to leave anyways? If that "waters down" the ease-of-voting on the group ban or not, so to speak? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, to my mind, the decision is and was easy enough to begin with. The fact that one of the proposed bannees will likely leave anyways just makes it even more useless. I'm sorry if I'm not answering your question; I'm not yet sure I fully understand what you're looking for. Off the top of my head, reasons I voted no are:
 * banning does nothing
 * since when do fair trials judge the collective guilt of multiple accused, together
 * if any of them are trolling, all the attention they're getting is probably what they want and a ban will suggest that their methods are working
 * the RW bigwig consensus behind the yes vote appears to me a slippery slope and is a precedent I would like to avoid
 * though I do not doubt the honest motives of those voting yes, it has the potential to look like a politically motivated purge to any passers-by
 * I hope that clears things up. B) talk 03:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are some rather compelling arguments... Yet compelling arguments for voting yes exist as well (though perhaps not as compelling...). And as a big cheese myself — a HUGE cheese, as Krusty puts it — I feel both a great respect for the other cheeses, as well as a general sensation that it's important that I don't rope myself into voting with my beloved colleagues just to please them, but because I'd actally want to toss my vote on the same option regardless. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you mind sharing? I've seen little beyond "This is exasperating, let's be done with them" in support of the ban. If there are subtleties I'm missing or if I'm being naive somehow, I'd like to know.
 * And I sympathize. I sure as hell don't want to trade positions with you. I will say, though, that you were presumably elected both on the basis of and in order to put to use your demonstrably reasonable judgment. And if your fellow heads of cheese possess reasonable judgment themselves, they won't allow expectations of "loyalty to the party" to cloud their judgment of you. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Bshaw / talk / contribs

Friendly hello...
Hi. I've been meaning to reach out. I apologise if my replies in our discussion came off slightly antagonistic. They were not meant to. If I could inflect into text, you'd probably know that. I can and will sometimes come across as combative during debates. For that, once again, sorry. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. Nothing wrong with passionately debating a point. That's what quite a bit of this site is, after all. I think some editors here take that fact as carte blanche to be an absolute ass to anyone who disagrees with them, and it'd be great to see less of that here, but you're not one of those people. I just wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't either. Cheers! B) talk 23:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

We need less and more Web Love at this site. Due to your above contributions towards this worthy goal, I hereby present you with the following template. You both earned it: Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks dad! B) talk 04:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rev!--Levi Ackerman (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Trigger Warning

 * TRIGGER WARNING*

- - - - - - - -

Just out of curiosity (and I am familiar with how wikis work, as I have edited several, and even made it as far as being a possible candidate for sysop when a buddy of mine and I infiltrated Conservapedia), but why was my edit on the Trigger Warning article removed, particularly in the section for "safe spaces". The comment I made was perfectly valid relating to their overall nature, being well-intended but ridiculous at times due to the fact that they perpetuate childhood mindset in an attempt to pander to the easily offended. - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sorry for sounding somewhat confrontational. I was just curious. :) Darth Ravigious (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not confrontational at all, thanks for being willing to chat about! There were several reasons I reverted your edits. I'll use bullets in order to try to be succinct, not to sound like an ass, I promise.
 * Your first edit left two red links in the article: one for "Millenial" and one for "Sound of Music". This happens when you try to link to wiki pages that don't exist. They're unsightly, and it's of course useless to insert dead links.
 * Also in your first edit, your link appears to equate "feeble minded students" and "Millenials". You must see the problems with this?
 * In your second long edit, you state, "Safe Spaces are really just designated rooms where people can go if they do not want to be offended by the harsh realities of life, which they will have to face sooner or later". The paragraph immediately prior to yours notes that safe spaces are often intended as gathering places where rape victims, cultural minorities, and others can meet in peace, without worrying about racial slurs, victim-blaming behavior, and the like. You also state, "colleges are intended to be havens of intellectualism specifically intended for those who wish to expose themselves to the outer world, which they will have to face sooner or later". The "outer world" is a place in which the aforementioned unfortunate behaviors happen, often frequently, and students often have faced such behavior in the "outer world". Within a "haven of intellectualism", one would hope that human beings could agree to behave intellectually, and speak to one another as equals, on the basis of the intellectual offerings of each individual, rather than in response to one's skin color, status as a rape victim, or otherwise. Safe spaces are often intended to provide a place where discourse like this can happen.
 * I'm happy to discuss a few more justifications for my revert if you would like to, just let me know. I agree re your first edit in that trigger warnings are in many cases misused and can have negative side effects; however, this point is addressed elsewhere in the article already. B) talk 01:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your endorsement! :)
- 02:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. B) talk 19:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

RE: Sysop
Thanks. --Season03 (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. B) talk 05:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)