User talk:Brianpansky

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Brianpansky!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

I suppose this "welcome" is a bit late ... - David Gerard (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


Congratulations, you can totally block people and not get away with it. Before you do that, please read RW:SYSOP. Or don't. Hipocrite (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Eh? I'm confused. I've been granted the power to block people or something? For some reason? Brianpansky (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
We give every one who proves to be not-insane the ability to use the extra sysop tools described in RW:SYSOP. I gave them to you. Hipocrite (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Science article[edit]

I'll agree that it needs a copyedit and it that portions of it seem nonsensical. I'm completely with you on the realism vs anti-realism debate. Realism kicks all the ass. But, your particular edits didn't make much sense to me. The Newton section probably belongs in the Newton article, and even there, it needs a big rewrite (because, as you say, it looks way too high school-y). So, yeah - I didn't undo you because I thought what was in there is poifect. I did it because we need to do a different kind of improvement in a different way. I'll get back to the article on this, it'd be sweet if you would chill and wait for me to do so. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping, I guess the talk section for the Science article is where we should discuss this next. Though I'm not sure I ever said something looks "high school-y", did I? Brianpansky (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
In the Talk page for the Newton article someone accused the page of being like a high school paper, but that wasn't me. That user also seems to think this is wikipedia. Brianpansky (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, lol - see, I misread your criticism of the current text as you saying the writing looked like it was ripped from the Supernatural (TV show) fan wiki. I was just like... yes, the article has problems. Screw anti-realism. xD Anyways, talkpage it is. Thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)