User talk:Onychoprion

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Onychoprion! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Welcome, Onychoprion! Don't hesitate to consult the help material or ask if you want help or advice on anything here at RationalWiki. Best regards. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I ... probably should have noticed the 'help' link there on the left. >.<Onychoprion (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

nukepunk

already exists, though not very organized compared to steampunk or cyberpunk, so your prediction was already fulfilled before it was made--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Awww, okay. Sorry. Onychoprion (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why you're sorry it exists, post-apoc is lots of fun.--20:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sorry post-apoc exists; I'm sorry that I fudged on doing proper research before adding it to the predictions. Also, for the sake of clarity, my prediction wasn't on post-apocalyptic culture, but rather a romantazation of Atomic culture, just as Steampunk romantasizes Victorian culture. Where things like the NS Savannah would be the Nukepunk equivalent of airships. Onychoprion (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well in a sense what you describe is 1950s futurism... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Give us one more Fallout and we'll have a fully formed subculture, but romanticized post-apocalyptic culture does already exist in disorganized form--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Aphrodisiac mayhem

Hello, Onychoprion! It's been a while. I just wanted to see if you're still frequenting the wiki? As per your own openness to the suggestion, I'd still like to honor you with some science on aphrodisiacs if you are at all interested in this service. A call for you to make, and for me to respect. Drop me a line on my talk page, regardless! Thank you in advance, friend. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure! Admitedly aphrodesiacs aren't usually one of the topics of my Random Internet Research binges, but I'm always willing to learn more! Onychoprion (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

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

We hope you enjoy your newfound POWER — and these external tools:

• Google Scholar Button ^{(Chrome, Firefox)} searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
• web.archive.org and archive.today, among other tools, can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again! Christopher (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahem

Just so you know, you inserted your signature in mainspace. Also, please use <ref> tags for sources instead of direct links! Thanks in advance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeeeeeah, somehow I thought that was a talk page. I nuked the changes, though, when I realized my mistake. Ditzing hard, sorry. Onychoprion (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sysop

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, wizard Sysop has been added to your user rights. Feel free to let your newfound POWER course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away. Christopher (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Rollback folly

Right here, you wondered why your rollback took out a chunk of edits. If you look at the history of the page, you'll see that the same IP editor who added the thing you were trying to rollback also did several of the previous edits, which were the chunks of things your rollback took out. This is why, at least on Wikipedia, rollback is reserved for reverting vandalism. Be careful with it. The Moose (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Sorry, still new to the whole mod janitor thing. I'm guessing I should instead use the 'undo' for single edits? -- Onychoprion (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Who'd have thunk it?

I suppose that's why we got the article. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Makes me wonder if Damian went through and did the math, or just guessed. In fairness, it's not a bad guess. It does make me want to go through a good chunk of the 1646 extinct and extant kinds that needed to be on the Ark (unfortunately wouldn't be able to easily do the 428 extinct reptiles) like Noah's Checklist, pointing out how many families and species each breeding-pair would need to evolve into in less than four thousand years. _{Am ... am I a sadist or something?} -- Onychoprion (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting! And speaking of Biblical kinds — I just remembered pausing to read the following 'Hammian' explanation. It's official, as far as plaque-at-the-Ark-encounter goes. Any thoughts on it? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Jesus Mary Xenu and all the orphans!

Did you write that whole article by yourself!? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'd say about 30-ish percent came from Brown, but otherwise yeah, pretty much. XD -- Onychoprion (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

So GODDAM proud of you rn

Collect your one (1) FREE victory meme TODAY!

This is how awesome you should feel tonight.

You earned it, buddy All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Haha, that's awesome! :D Thanks! Really made my evening -- Onychoprion (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Tip: adding images

If you wanna embed images from that website, you can use Special:Upload! Just use the "fair use" license. :) The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll probably do a few of those, like I did the chart at the intro, but pictures don't work as well with the side-by-side stuff. When I get to Part II I'll probably use more in-line pictures. -- Onychoprion (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It works pretty well, I think. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 16:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It does work, but it also adds a lot of vertical length to the article, which I'm not sure is something that should happen considering how big it'll be already. If I come across an image that absolutely needs to be in, I'll find a way to add it (or stuff it into "additional images" or some "notes" section). -- Onychoprion (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Moved this from sandbox talk. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 19:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)