User talk:Nog Bogmire

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Nog Bogmire!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

--Spoony (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep up the good work[edit]

The annotated bible here has been pretty barren. Anything you can add would help plenty--Spoony (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Organic foods[edit]

Thanks for adding to the list :) —Kazitor, pending 09:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This allows you to bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

And while we're increasing your ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ, some external tools:

  • Rbutr: Shows user-submitted rebuttals to your current webpage.
  • Google Scholar Button (Chrome, Firefox): Searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check citations!
  • and Save permanent copies of webpages for future citation.--Spoony (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


You've been demoted and given a mop, here's how to use it. Try not to break anything. Christopher (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

this user asserts the fact that user @Christopher displayed the said example of power relations and control system as described by this user by bypassing the authority of user @Nog Bogmire and establishing user christopher as final authority on the matter of exercise woo until a superior rankholder intervenes.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[1]] [[2]] 19:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't "bypass Nog Bogmire's authority", neither of us have any, I just provided a reason why the redirect was necessary (if Nog deletes it again I'd discuss it on the talk page). Christopher (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to users @Nog Bogmire and Christopher, this user asserts the fact that the matters of power relations and control system are inherent in that in disagreement matters, users higher up in the power structure regardless of system, possess the final words in any matter as is displayed in the recent incidents and this user is attempting to utilize the userbase to expand upon on-mission articles which would be of urgent priority in order to further the cause of rationalwiki to which, this user lacks the resources to do so by the self.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[3]] [[4]] 10:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Just so you know[edit]

I don't think you're the devil or anything, Nog. But I could've called you things too, you know. But I didn't. Now, maybe you meant what you said, and in that case I won't try to twist your arm for a forced apology.

But I just wanted you to know that if you were to decide that maybe what you said was more of a 'spur-of-the-moment' type thing, and that it kinda... slipped out? I'd forgive you, and we could call it even. Just so you know.

You'll have to make your own decisions regarding all that, though. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The Trump quote[edit]

I'm with you on this one, however, don't say that Percy is a "useless bag of cocks" and remove his posts Christopher (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just not a huge fan of obvious condescension like linking to a "how to" video. Nog Bogmire (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
It was a bit condescending, being condescending doesn't make someone a useless bag of cocks though. Christopher (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it makes them P, apparently :D Nog Bogmire (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
"Obvious condescension"? I resent that, actually. Especially from you, @Christopher. The video link was truly meant to be helpful, and I believe my phrasing was my regular happy-go-lucky me ("hope this helps!") and not some insidious imp typing. For shame. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't "getting the basics in order" sort of imply Nog doesn't know the basics? Whilst this could quite well be true (I doubt most people even know what a fallacy is, let alone the distinction between formal and informal fallacies), it could come off as condescending of you did know the basics. Christopher (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@Christopher Allow me to quote myself on my formal logic skills; "I am an absolute newb at it". Being called a useless bag of cocks and a troll on top of having taken such a vulnerable position frankly wasn't called for. I even picked the title "getting the basics in order" so that it'd feel inclusive to everyone, regardless of prior skillset. I never post genuinely informative nutshell videos out of spite, and you know that. I mean; I'd want them all watched by people, preferably! I think they're good and I hope they help! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
But if you're an absolute newb at it why were you being so confrontational about it? Right away you suggested I didn't understand it (I was "oblivious"), and you kept doing it. What was I supposed to think? Nog Bogmire (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Because even as an absolute newb, I know the most basic of basics (e.g. that informal content is irrelevant to formal symbolism). And, frankly — since you ask — your comparisons were outright illogical. It was clearly a case of "one man with half the facts debating a man with none of the facts" — i.e., an excellent case for everyone to just calm down, gather 'round the video campfire and try to get themselves some new bearings on the whole discussion. That's all. You still need to watch that video, by the way. I'm sure I do, too. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
To clarify: Me saying that I could understand how Nog thought you were being condescending wasn't meant to imply that I thought the post in question was condescending, or that it justified anyone calling anyone else a useless bag of cocks and a troll. Christopher (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, friend. Th hug.gif Thanks. I never asked you to condemn what Nog said. But I was saddened to hear what looked like conditional assent to it (from you). Now I know this was not the case, in the least. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Back Up[edit]

Because I got pinged as part of the "fire blanket of sane people," I really think I should know what is happening here. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to canvass you to cause trouble or anything, just so you know. I know this isn't your intention, either. I just felt that certain lines were being crossed and that I'd do myself a disservice not to 'blow my whistle' before things went much further, as it were. The mere fact that I'm writing this is testament to the success of the strategy, for the record. Thanks for being there. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop editng a lot[edit]

It's a pain to look through each edit in the log and to see in the recent changes.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Today, you've made exactly 76 edits to the Alt-right glossary‎‎. This is too much.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, was watching a bunch of alt-right videos and adding terms as I heard them, since I don't have a great memory for this stuff. Nog Bogmire (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it would be best to copy the article into notepad and edit to your heart's content. Just make sure to add refs with your entries.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Well the thing is a lot of sources would be things we probably don't really want to link to, like, say, Sargon of Akkad's explanation of the Progressive Stack or about half of Aydin Paladin's channel. Nog Bogmire (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)