User talk:Mr. Bojangles

18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Colby
His article is mostly about his show anyways. Apologize if I came off as a dickТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 20:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Just was wondering why The Daily Show got its own article and his show didn't. But I realize RW has a mission and all that.--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Megyn Kelly
Source on her questionable legal career? Inquiring minds want to know... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will find one probably in the morning. Or more, if I feel compelled. I will just say her knowlege of law as displayed on Billo's show was Schlaflyesque and not the best. Thanks for your interest in fixing up teh artikle though.--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

George Washington
You're absolutely right, the article could do with fixing. Thanks for volunteering. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I will start a rewrite in my userspace or something. Before next week, I will try to have a full rewrite.--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to RationalWiki, and your first Block!
I expect you'll be demoted soon enough, and will be able to return the favor! -- 01:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hopefully. When do the demoters come though?--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It varies... sometimes it's overnight, sometimes it takes a few days... even a few creationists are demoted on our page! As we are a true mobocracy! :) -- 01:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmkay. Creationists too, eh? Wow! Have you seen my work as of far by chance?--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I got it and you've done far more writing than me. Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 01:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your work on my Talk page is actually perfectly good! :) -- 01:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats you're demoted. Here's your manual. Go play. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 01:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Toleration vs. blocking & different views vs. trolling/vandalism
Hiya Mr. Bojangles. This is a response to the topic you raised on User talk:Scott Hayward (SH) regarding blocks vs. toleration and/or different views vs. trolling/vandalism.

While I agree that the action against SH was perhaps a bit trigger happy (though not unwarranted, mind you), I also think that SH’s “contributions”, such as they were, had the hallmarks of trolling, rather than actual constructive dialogue based on differing views. The difference with RobS/nobs is, that nobs tends to engage in actual dialogue/debate, rather than simply posting provocative comments such as SH’s, the latter of which can be boiled down to “fuck you and the horse you rode in on”. Sure, I disagree profoundly with nobs, but I’ve still had some interesting discussions with him that, while not changing my mind, at least gave me a better understanding of his take on certain topics and by extension what I might loosely term “a US conservative worldview”. By contrast, SH simply posted comments about various sexual orientations showing his personal disapproval by slagging them off, which is hardly an indication of someone interested in constructive (or indeed any) dialogue.

How quickly such types should be blocked and for how long is a longstanding topic of dispute in these parts, as you’ve probably seen in other cases too. I tend to err on the side of caution (mainly because block worthy types tend to go overboard quite quickly and I prefer to have a solid record for a block), but others prefer to only have to revert a few shitposts before proceeding to a block. As for length, I also tend to prefer short, initial blocks with room for escalation, but again there are differing views on this. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)