User talk:Reverend Black Percy/Archive4

This is an archive page, last updated 29 November 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

Postmodernism in the Papers[edit]

Hey Percy, you maintained I was believing in a "conspiracy", which has been a common reply on the RationalWiki. I found this stunning, since it's basic higher education to know that postmodernism is a thing and has its influence. I suspect you and others think of "cultural marxism", but that's neither what I wrote about, nor what I believe is going on. But even on that point, you make it yourself a little too easy to dismiss the criticism. Instead of shutting off your brain and laughing off criticism, you might want to change your stance, and your tune to ever more evidence that's coming in and will continue to roll in. Here's a fun twitter account that shares academical papers with many a postmodernist assertion. Here are a few example cases, to make the point that what I stated about this ideology is "real" and not a conspiracy.

That's only a sample of their September tweets. If you have some experience with the actual "social justice" discourse, you will find the jargon and its ideas intimately familiar. This is the thing, on the academical proper side. I already brought you the CRT intro chapter (Delgado & Stefancic, 2006), and Intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991) connection, pointed you to the online movement (e.g. Everyday Feminism), closed the nutpicking loophole by showing you examples of Freethought Blogs and American Humanists (which are also easy to find, if you just look up the terms, or search Crip Dyke's lessons on Pharyngula etc). And of course the RationalWiki itself is a great example that such views are not a matter of nutters, see defenders and supporters — such as yourself. I understand you antagonize like many others here, because you want to "fit in" with the crowd here. The most charitable interpretation is that many typical supporters are "Mitläufers" — largely ignorant people who never read the party manual, but who bought into slogans and gave in to peer pressure. I also know that personal conflicts tend to continue, even when the dispute is resolved, which is due to displacement. I don't know if it helps to point this out. ~ Aneris ✻ 19:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Aneris! Do you mind linking me to the post where I maintained that you believe in a "conspiracy"? I'm sure that in the context of that discussion, any such comment was hardly out of place (and likely infused with snark, not literalism). Regardless.

Thank you for providing me with these links. Based on what you've told me here, if I had Twitter, I would most definitely start following the RealPeerReview account right away.

The one thing in the above which I react rather strongly to is that you — like so often — fail to stop once you've successfully (and sometimes, quite eloquently) made your points. Right where you say "...such as yourself", you lose me. Completely. The sometimes quite convincing spell you've just cast is broken once you leave the land of pointing out facts, and toss in — as if in an afterthought — a startling over-estimation that rings of "...by the way, I know who you are". It becomes immersion breaking to the point where not just that latter segment, but the former, factual observances you just made actually suffer a little in my eyes as well.

You dress the table well, and just as I'm ready to stand up and applaud, you stubbornly add the "bonus" move of attempting to also pull the cloth out from under those same plates you just set so skillfully. What's not to love about adding an extra high note right at the end? But you fumble, catapulting half of what just moments prior stood relatively firmly, sending it crashing in every direction. Naturally, the previously open window for applause from any self-respecting person has now been slammed shut with a bang. If anything — considering the jaw-dropping lack of tact required to gamble with such an impromptu finale — the skilled competence of having set that table in the first place seems diminished. Failing to stop in time doesn't "top off" your argument, it debases it — and you rarely fail to end on a variant of this precise record low note. Why, I don't know, and it would be rude to speculate. But you do do this, like clockwork.

Worse still; you often taint your whole presentation with rhetoric absolutely bathed in far more melodramatic terms than you — for whatever reason — did this time (a welcome change in the right direction, albeit to an ultimately insufficient degree). The essential flaw in this insistence of yours — on glazing the fact-cake you just baked with just a pinch of "wake up" — is that you never quite seem to be able to stop at the top of the bell curve (as far as the quality of your argument is concerned); instead, you devotedly press on, past the apex, and into a land that vaguely reeks of jonanism, persecution complex and — speaking of psychological defenses — splitting. Because based on what you just said about me and my apparent views, I know you've misunderstood me yet again. It's the insertion of a direct fallacy in an otherwise worthwhile presentation. I'd like to say "don't do that", but the investment on my part that such a comment would imply results in an overstatement. I'd wish you didn't do that, however. But I'm not expecting you to abandon what is, by now, your typecast style of melancholic prose. Which is to say: making your points, and then — before anyone has a chance to respond — donning a bright burgundy cape, holding up a skull and — striking a silent movie era pose of wise sorrow — breathing the words "But alas...".

It's funny that you'd write to me like this, anyways. Just this past week, I've finally gotten around to actually sitting down and reading certain introductory Postmodernist texts closer (not ones critical of Postmodernism, but highly lauded ones, written by mainstream Postmodernist academics seeking to recruit into the school of thought, and to generally give their own version of the utility of postmodernism). And I must say, what I've read and understood comes off to me as possibly the most ridiculous word salad I've ever read. It's completely impenetrable mumbo-jumbo. After having approached the subject with the patience of a saint (for the record, spurred on to give Postmodernism the benefit of the doubt just a pinch extra due to my dislike of your tirades against it), what I already suspected was confirmed beyond my wildest expectations. It seems to me Postmodernism can function as an engine for the very antithesis of basic human reason. I think that, while bits and pieces of Postmodernist thought can be lucid (a gold star I proudly hand out an effort not to fall into splitting, myself), many of its core concepts — to the extent Postmodernism is even one thing (don't ride my ass over implicit details like that) — are fatally bugged the fuck out, to put it plainly.

Immediately, I started making notes on what I was going to source and refute in upcoming additions to our Postmodernism article (among other articles). Not because these damning conclusions on the underbelly of Postmodernism were in any way new to me. But likely because, for once, they weren't presented with an excruciating pathos of tragedy, as if lifted straight out of a soap opera (here's looking at you, kid). And as insane as the contents of the books were, atleast they didn't haste to assumptions about the reader. A wisdom lies in that which you could benefit from, as could we all.

But again, thanks to your antics, I'm certainly not saying something as broad as "you were right". I can't ever say that, because again, you never did stop in time. You always had to add baggage to your claims. And for the record, it might seem out of place that I confess to having once more been motivated to reject Postmodernism just as you corner me with the above — a way for me to cower out of your criticism by taking a cowardly route of unctous agreement. But I insist — no such cowering or unctousness is taking place here. I legitimately agree with you on some — if not most — things about Postmodernism. But I can't lend my name to any of the steps you take beyond that — that's you missing the top of the bell curve again. However — there should be no confusion on whom is reaching out to whom, here. So don't construe this into me suddenly having made some kind of 180 degree turn, excitedly exposing my undercarriage to you with pleads that you from here on out inseminate me with your ideas.

On the other hand, what I am saying is essentially that; were you to dial down your melodramatic "crusading" quite a few notches, you'd likely be able to reach more people with your exact same views (though, add or take in regards to your sometimes flowchart-y drumbeating about what "lies behind" what, and the implications that you insist follow). Meaning; I'm not asking you to "give in to peer pressure" (as you put it); I'm just asking you to bring your boil back down to an approachable simmer. I know I do my best, as always, to be a person I'm proud of. And that includes understanding that there's no person so bad there's not some good in him, and no person so good that there's not some bad in him. Point being, I try not to dehumanize anyone here, and I try not to fall into splitting whenever possible. Those efforts are extended towards you as well.

I will admit right away that, were you to take these comments to heart, I would have to concede to being much impressed. I only say so because your track record doesn't lend credence to anything but the likely situation where you riposte with yet another dreary performance in your above mentioned Shakespearian manner. Yet, perhaps enhanced by the dismal odds, the idea of you actually pausing and becoming mindful to these criticisms excites me. Not just because your community theatrics generally drain my energy, but because it would mean you'd stop sorting people so passionately. I'm tired of being sorted by you, largely because you're human. Which means; your reasons for sorting people in the first place don't include you being particularly talented at it. And — once more, in the effort against splitting — you occasionally make points that are more worthwhile than some people in the community give you credit for. Which is why the loss is extra every time you insist on attempting to pull out that blasted table cloth from under the plates. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this detailed reply! I have more to say, but I think it would be beneficial to go about this step by step. I understand your criticism and I dislike the situation myself as well. However, you've seen the usual busines on talk pages (you commented on it, and no, it' not a fluke). Now consider what I wrote here long ago, in good sport. Or in some earlier version of my talk page. Did you know that the KiwiFarms has a 100+ pages thread on the RationalWiki? Have you seen Wiki in Action, that documented my cases, too? Check out the ED, too, some editors here are internet famous. I only learned about these things at the time when Carpetsmoker left, who left for "reasons". Other people also mysteriously left for "reasons". You may, however, continue to pretend that it is "nothing" and just me being eccentric. On the flipside, are you aware that the RationalWiki portays people of Atheist Ireland as rape apologists? Utterly baseless, of course. Did you know, on the contrary about the self-confessed child-rape apologia from PZ Myers and community? Of course, that's documented nowhere. If you think something is grotesquely upside down, you would be correct. Did you know that you foster a climate where truth doesn't matter, since one side constantly lies about other people and when you step in to correct that, the well is poisoned sytematically (you've seen it, I won't name them to not summon them). In sum, I don't complain, I document, and I was told the RationalWiki was a good place to document lies and charlatanry. I would very much prefer if things were better and the RationalWiki would report accurately, but that's just not the case at present. ~ Aneris ✻ 17:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Meeting tmrw[edit]

Check mail. Also, add Skype. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Ooh, handsome beans! Thanks for the reminder.

I suppose it's a big problem I don't have a working mic right now? Could impulse buy one tomorrow, though! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

In response to your message[edit]

To respond to your message. I've read the guidelines and my edits are in line with the community guidelines.

Notably this:

“”Yes, we have a rational point of view. We create our articles from this rational perspective, and we attempt to demonstrate the strength of science and the scientific method, and the folly of cranks. If you create an article yourself, please remember that we are not an encyclopedia and follow our mission statements:

Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement.
Analyzing and refuting crank ideas.
Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

Entries on the webshite page without any explation or references to the actual material are therefore in violation of the guidelines. Bomahe (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you read the guidelines. Just don't miss this stuff as well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Only that this isn't true. Rather (and to simplify somewhat) RationalWiki is actually PZPOV. Basically, what PZ Myers thinks is also the editorial position here. If he doesn't like someone, or something, you also don't. In the rare cases he likes something, or someone, the RationalWiki will follow along. He's also frequently quoted, unless, his words might make him look idiotic, then the PR team will rather sweep it under the rug and are suddenly not so keen on including the quotation. "What PZ Says" goes as far that it even overwrites fully documented video evidence. It's quite comical actually. I am only asking that you stop wanting to have it both ways. Either, you admit to this and you write it on the tin. Or, probably better, you stop it and actually follow your guidelines or mission. ~ Aneris ✻ 00:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

“”As a site, RationalWiki does have a strong skeptically-oriented point of view; and that point of view is that the scientific method and the information gained from its application is better than almost anything else humanity has come up with. The site's POV is that the support of, profiting from and creation of pseudosciences is as dangerous as it is wrong. Articles are created from this perspective, demonstrating the strength of science and the folly of the cranks. Similarly, articles relating to authoritarianism, logical fallacies, and wrong and broken thinking in general need to expose their flaws and dangers.

I'm actually all for keeping Blair White on the Webshite page. But according to the community guidelines, you should back up your claim. Go back and edit Blair White's entry with WHY she is a webshite if you think she belongs there with references, or my removal of her is in according to the guidelines. You're not a skeptic if you dismiss other people's views without any justification. This is RATIONALwiki, be rational. Bomahe (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is there neither a drink template nor a cheers template? I am not the Ombud's man 22:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

What is preventing people from making stuff up if there is no requirement to back up your statements? All I've asked of you is to back up your claim and not turn this into conservapedia. Can you even read the community guidelines and the links you're posting? Because you're not follwoing them. But don't worry, I'll added the reason myself to why Blair should be on the list, if you don't like it write a better one. Bomahe (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Something, something, dark side[edit]

If you found Postmodernism "completely impenetrable mumbo-jumbo" why haven't you familiarized yourself with Modernism first? (As the wiki page for Postmodernism incidentally recommends you do.) Postmodernism is, after all, a reaction to Modernism in the same way Romanticism was a reaction to the Enlightenment. I always found it interesting how postmodernist discourse lends itself quite easily towards the rather incoherent moral relativism of the New Atheists, yet they never extend their moral reasoning to epistemological reasoning as well. Withoutaname (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Something, something, complete. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Critics of New Atheists are like those who complain that Albert Einstein never published a song. Why Einstein would also dedicate his time to writing and recording songs is usually left unexplained. Perhaps he did, and but it was never released. He might have liked songs written by other people, and they were quite compatible with Einteins own work. I'm told that even newfangled death metal goes quite well with Einstein's formulas. If you were missing something in your life, you could perhaps add this music, or maybe you like folk music better. Expert opinion has it, that folk music, too, won't interfere with special relativity. Dutch Schlager might, though. But maybe you are one of those hardliners, who says that Einstein's own violin play was inferior and it's for this reason that his work on physics should be discarded as well. But that would be stupid. Don't be stupid, Withoutaname. ~ Aneris ✻ 00:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

When I critique religion it's considered combating irrationality, but when I provide similar critiques the dogmatic, anti-intellectual mentality of New Atheists they fall back to apologizing for their leaders Dawkins, Harris, et al. Defenders of the New Atheist movement tend to be highly ideological fetishizers of scientism who have never picked up a philosophy textbook and thus their philosophical positions are a few centuries outdated. The result is their complete reliance on a vaguely defined "science", which is usually no more than a preconceived substitute for basic unscientific "common sense" empiricism (e.g. vulgar biological determinism or "biotruths"), for all of their epistemological pursuits concerning the universe. I do support science as practiced by professional scientists, but I also accept that science and especially the "science" of the New Atheists cannot answer all epistemological questions (e.g. the unfalsifiability of the scientific method itself, the fact that empiricism and rationalism must be taken as true a priori, and the fact that science cannot provide answers for the Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms). Speaking of which, have you ever heard of the pessimistic meta-induction, especially concerning outdated theories like the phlogiston, Lamarckism and the luminiferous aether? Withoutaname (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

That word salad aside...

@Aneris You're wasting your breath, I'm afraid. Like, seriously. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Word salad? I'm explaining how anti-intellectual New Atheists refuse to consider epistemological positions outside of science. How is this difficult to understand? Withoutaname (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Withoutaname, the first thing is to understand that no obscurantist sophistry brings any fairytale, legend or religious claims closer to the truth, by whatever definition. It is really that simple. The problems you cite turn out to be mere obscurantism. Scientists are fine with limitations, approximations, and not knowing. New Atheist are however debunkers of religious assertions we know are false. Since a majority of people believes in religious assertions about reality, and since such beliefs are harmful, there is a need for debunking them. What else you put on your plate is up to you. I go with model dependend realism, others might reject that view and prefer something else. Atheism is not a religion that has to provide you with a full set of views, which a self-described authoritarian might not understand. Atheism is a feature of your views, namely that they are “without theism” and nothing else. If this isn't a PRATT, it should be one. However, some atheists want to make an uppercase Atheism and add things to it so that it's a more rounded set. One attempt has been Atheism Plus, or the newer incarnation of social justice intersectionality atheism. You can check with them, they are also postmodernists, maybe you find your tribe there (they also hate New Atheism, for quite similar reasons). ~ Aneris ✻ 02:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

What you call "obscurantist sophistry" is merely the observation that most New Atheists I've met have yet to advance beyond 18th century Enlightenment philosophy and are consistently reactionary when it comes to any criticism of their fake "scientific" positions. It's incredibly ideological and arrogant to think that the whole world could be condensed into a single simple philosophical worldview. The problems I cite are actual real-life problems in science and scientific methodology, not "mere obscurantism". I wish more New Atheists actually acknowledged the limitations of science, perhaps like you, but the truth is that the New Atheists I've met have always reacted very hostilely to philosophical ideas that threaten their worldview.

I have no problem with atheism as a philosophical position (it is actually a position that I hold) or even most of the scientific institution for that matter. (Though String Theory tends to get more philosophical than scientific for my taste.) In my posts I consistently refer to the New Atheist "movement", if it can be called that, and its fetishizing of science. I will also note that neither Atheism Plus nor I are postmodernists. Postmodernism specifically rejects the grand narratives of society "progressing" toward a certain eschatology and hence most left-leaning notions of "progress". Withoutaname (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 03:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! I am not the Ombud's man 17:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: The reply[edit]

Thanks for the reply on objectivism RBP! It helped put things into perspective and now I understand why it's flawed. Thanks very much :)

Also, sorry it took so long for me to see/reply to you, I've been busy recently with school and all.

Again, thanks for helping me out again .--WMS (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem, buddy! As always, you're very welcome. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Anti-intellectualism[edit]

Do you have anything useful to contribute, or do you just take the anti-intellectual attitude that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll? Withoutaname (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If you don't understand the "word salad", maybe that's because you refuse to leave your anti-intellectual bubble. Why don't you actually try to improve your philosophical reasoning instead of spreading a cancerous image everywhere which says nothing? Withoutaname (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm perfectly serious. Now, if you don't have anything useful to contribute, I'm going to remove the comments you put on the regressive left talkpage. Withoutaname (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

And if you continually stalk my posts with that annoying template, I will take you to the coop. Withoutaname (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't take this to the coop. You're wrong, no one will think you're oppressed. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Well then why has RBP been following me around with the template? Withoutaname (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

They've been watching recent changes like a good little editor, and you've posted nothing that didn't warrant it. Hope that helps. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Look, anytime RBP shows up they've refused to argue against my points or contribute to the discussion meaningfully. Aneris might disagree with me but at least Aneris provides rational evidence for each assertion. RBP hasn't contributed anything but ad hominems. Withoutaname (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 19:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC) 19:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed! I am not the Ombud's man 19:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Sidebar template in Messiah[edit]

Thank you for troubleshooting that :), i didn't realize what was that made the references disappear. I was wondering if it was more appropriate to substitute Template:Religion with Template:Judaism.

Should we open a talk page about it?--Sofer (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem, buddy! It's a bug in our current Wiki softwate. You couldn't have known beforehand.

Regarding replacing the template — no. While it is great to see the Jewish angle expanded, the very umbrella concept of a Messiah — which is present in most world religions — belongs to the Religion template and that template alone. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much.

I will try to expand the article with paragraphs about other religions' view of Messianic figures as suggested by you. Thanks again.--Sofer (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

French Revolution[edit]

Can you explain how the French Revolution is not authoritarian? Most accounts describe it as the Committee of Public Safety using the guillotine to impose ideological views across an entire country. Withoutaname (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a very, very shortened view of what actually happened. For one thing the committee of public safety only was around for a rather short period of the Revolution. I am not the Ombud's man 14:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"Using the guillotine to impose ideological views across an entire country" most certainly sums up your own personally favoured world-view, and I understand why you would try to claim the chaotic and nuanced achivement that was the French revolution under the authoritarian banner. Thankfully, the chief heritage of the French revolution is instead the historical communion and spread of enlightenment ideals, including that of democracy. The only other categories the article have is to denote it as an historical event at all, and one mentioning slavery (as in, the enlightenment-driven democratic ideal of its abolition). If we had a separate article on the Committee of Public Safety, I'd certainly support the category there. But not as the stand-alone political label for the entire article on the French revolution as a whole. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not the Ombud's man 15:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"Thankfully, the chief heritage of the French revolution is instead the historical communion and spread of enlightenment ideals, including that of democracy" Authoritarian means to achieve libertarian ends are still authoritarian. Did you read the page on authoritarianism that refers to the elevating of power over reason in the pursuit of dogmas like "freedom" and "democracy"? Do you want me to cite all the different authoritarian governments during the French Revolution that were responsible for the murders committed in its name (National Assembly, Legislative Assembly, Committee of Public Safety...)? Withoutaname (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I want you to cite me everything to the letter. Get to work. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Your use of "radical" as an epithet indicating "authoritarianism" is certainly no better than a Trump supporter's understanding of politics. Withoutaname (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Damn — if only I knew how to change titles![edit]

Mind adding something? Anyone can, this is the world we're talking about!-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 23:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Damn... If only I knew how to be funny! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Add stuff and I'll add humor to it. Deal?

-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 23:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Damn! If only I knew how to add stuff! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop wiggling out of this! You can't escape!-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 04:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

What are you here for?[edit]

This just shows you have more interest in simply opposing me than in improving the website. Withoutaname (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

What am I here for? You mean, aside from me being one of the five trustees and a sitting board member of the RationalMedia Foundation (elected by popular vote, no less *Milhouse eyebrows*), tasked with the operation of this entire site? I'm a proud taker of the Sysop pledge, as well — part of my job is keeping the slop off the site. Hi. I'm here, like, all the time.

And, speaking of "what certain people are doing at various times and places"... It seems you've spent a notable portion of today wierdly impugning my motives (which you constantly assume to know, no less).

Like now, you previously implied that I don't contribute constructively to the site. I hope the following feature of the site will help you determine if that is the case, both for the year 2016 and the current month (September).

Further; I've noticed you seem to seriously believe that I am following you around in a malignant way with the intention of sabotaging your every move, or something to that effect — even though I, just earlier, admitted a mistake to you, for example. I also straight-up gave you credit for another edit you made. No points given to me by you for those kind gestures, I suppose.

The fact is simply that I'm a very active contributor to this site, and there's hardly an edit that passes me by. I'm under the impression that I'm generally a visible name in the Recent Changes feed (take a look, see!). Interestingly enough, that hasn't led to any kerfuffles in something like 95% of the interactions that I've participated in univited (for the entire 1½ years I've been here so far). But then again — the majority of editors I see daily on the site have a very different quality-to-bullshit-ratio in their edits compared to you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

No I'm asking why you are constantly following my every edit, challenging my every move and posting simple image macros/namecalling on every thread I open without rebutting a single argument I make. Look through my contributions list and take a drink every time you're directly involved, especially as directly replies to my threads. You even reversed the "credit" you supposedly gave me on the Third Positionism article which shows how uninformed you are on the subject and how intellectually bankrupt you are to be so easily convinced by anyone who opposes me, including creationists and actual Zionists. Withoutaname (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

"Actual Zionists" You say that as if it were a bad thing... I am not the Ombud's man 23:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Moving our latest conversation?[edit]

Hi Rev.,

I'm beginning to think that our latest discussion on Talk:Mao Zedong is straying from the original point of the section it's posted in. Perhaps we should cut our bit out and paste it into a new section on Talk:Communism instead? Or would that be too confusing? ScepticWombat (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I'll move it; the whole question belongs under Marxism/Communism anyways (what was Mao's impact on it). Hey, I hope you found anything the least bit useful in what I wrote! All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it was somewhat interesting, although I find the details of the history of ideas less interesting than how ideas are (ab)used in specific historical circumstances to justify or condemn this or that (though I've actually taught a course entitled Ideas of Europe in European History). As for Engels, I simply used the typical shorthand of referring only to Marx. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hegel is a bore, I agree, but Rosseau's concept of the General Will is incredibly fascinating, and it's real-world implications have proven mordant. In modern history, no less. The ~~best~~ worst part about that theory is that it's precisely one thing — a product of his own neurotically inhibited aggression. Rosseau literally figured things this way: he claimed to have solved the problem of conflict, violence and aggression in society. How, you ask? Well, he realized that if it was the case that everyone simply agreed with each other, the problem is solved. There's no conflict or aggression if every single person in society genuinely shares the exact view on all issues. Nothing to be upset about, in other words. So he devised a theoretical framework to be allowed to live out this idea, and that was the General Will. Now, the specifics of the General Will are a bit more meaty, but Rosseau is unique in that he left very detailed diaries to the world, and in these, it's made rather clear that his entire theory stemmed from his extreme aversion to conflict, on an emotional level. From Robespierre to Lenin to Stalin, many violent dictators have referred to themselves (in so many words) as being the "embodiment of the General Will", and thus, their violent extermination of dissent has always been defensible as a moral good. Oh, the poor ideological products of an inhibited man... Rosseau!!! *shakes fist at cloud * As someone who has himself lived through being rather separated from his aggression, this is all beyond interesting to note. Maybe these facts were a bit more interesting to read? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Like Rosseau wrote (partial quote): "AS long as several men assembled together consider themselves as a single body, they have only one will which is directed towards their common preservation and general well-being. Then, all the animating forces of the state are vigorous and simple, and its principles are clear and luminous; it has no incompatible or conflicting interests; the common good makes itself so manifestly evident that only common sense is needed to discern it." Basically, if everyone happens to agree all of the time, problem solved. No more panic anxiety attack inducing bouts of people being upset at stuff. An irony is that this philosophy of "please, please, please don't raise your voices you make me shiver with anxiety" was soon to motivate mass murder; itself an analogy to how those with repressed anger are instead prone to developing bouts of Hulk-esque attacks of rage (the "blowing of a gasket"). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Huh?[edit]

What? Why? Why did you protect targeted individuals? Your touyube link told me nothing. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Just trust me on this one for now, friend. There are ghosts of edit wars past lurking these halls. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Pig with a drumstick[edit]

Just to clarify, that pig with a drumstick image means "I know you're a troll so I'm not goning to continue this conversation" correct?

~~Try clicking it, Copernicus. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)~~

Haha, alrighty amigo :).--WMS (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait, why'd you call me Copernicus? (Sorry for asking by the way :3)--WMS (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry, friend! Since you forgot to sign by accident, I stupidly assumed that this was yet another troll post by Withoutaname! I did not mean to phrase myself like that towards you, WMS

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Haha, no worries friend! This is completely understandable mate and don't worry it's my fault that this happened because I didn't sign the post (I tend to forget sometimes :P). It's all good amigo :)

.--WMS (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

No problems mate! Take care and always feel free to ask anything, like the above question, or others.

All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay dokay mate! Thanks again! :D--WMS (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You said you wanted to arbitrate in Middle East debates...[edit]

Now's your chance! Come to the Saloon Bar before it is just another impenetrable wall of text. I am not the Ombud's man 23:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I never said I wanted to arbitrate — in fact, I said that I wouldn't touch that topic with a ten feet Reverend pole! That being said however, I do want to remain a trusted neutral on the topic. Which feeds into the first point even more. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Article Disputes[edit]

Hello. I have been having a dispute over an article that I think is going to go nowhere. What should I do to reach a consensus? — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Which article is it? It's not related to the current Chicken Coop, I hope. The first step is always to talkpage, however. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for that edit to the Ethics article. To be honest, I think that entire section needs to go—it's very poorly written. Good luck with it. The Present King of France (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A possibly stupid question[edit]

The way I read your chicken coop contribution is "I don't think punishment is a good idea - yet". I would like to know a behavior on my part that I should avoid in order to avoid being cooped again and/or what would make you reconsider your stance. And please don't take this the wrong way, I just want to really avoid this spiralling downwards more than it already has and I have thus far seen that you are a sane, levelheaded and more or less neutral person with no vested interest in the current dispute. And I really, really, really don't want this coop to end only for a similarly trivial thing to result in the next coop just around the corner. This is one of the reasons why I have asked - probably to the point of exhaustion by now - whether sources can be added to WIGO (thus far with no answer from anybody) and what the rules for that are. I don't think any rule-breaking on my part led to the coop - if it did, please say me so I can avoid that in the future - and I would really really really like to keep to the rules in the future, but I would like to know them to the point that knowing them is possible. Hoping for a reply. - I am not the Ombud's man 21:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

One could read it akin to "I don't think punishment is a good idea — yet", perhaps. It might as well be understood more like "I don't think a punishment that hard is due — yet". One could also read it in terms of "I don't think we should rule out the possibility that LH can straighten up and fly right — yet". Any statement from anyone is a world of opportunity when it comes to understanding the specifics of it it, good intentions or (especially) no. Now, where am I going with all this?

I've seen you repeatedly say — according to some, in a sealioning fashion — that you would, (quote): "really really really like to keep to the rules in the future, but I would like to know them to the point that knowing them is possible."

I've bold-marked your latter phrasing there; the implication — it seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong — is that you would love to stick to the rules, if only they were "made clear" (or something to that effect). The problem here is obvious, which my exercise above seeks to demonstrate. The secret to good rules, in my humble opinion, isn't — like you seem to be implying — all about specifying every minute detail in an unequivocable way. Aside from that being an impossible fool's errand, and also opening up an infinite regress of people being able to say "Hang on, THAT wasn't SPECIFIED, per se!" until the cows come home... The fact is that the secret to good rules is for the users to not read the rules like Satan reads the Bible.

The reality is that a majority of editors — good editors, too — are not repeatedly involved in coop cases. Now, I say "involved in", because I'm not saying that getting cooped is evidence of anything (assuming the coop is unsuccessful in handing down a verdict). In fact, you likely argue that people such as PB read the rules much too closely (and/or like Satan reads the Bible). Even if you don't, and regardless of if PB actually does or not — you will still understand why I'm going to be very careful when unspecific calls for specificity are being made by you.

Now, you are right to refer to me as a trusted neutral. I am. But I'm going to say this much, and this without joining us at the hip — I know you're capable of not being a zealot. I know you have it in you. I told you to stay off I-P a few weeks back and you actually did it. Ikanreed told you not to spread your discussion in the Saloon bar, and you actually did it. Baby steps, I agree, but atleast I know you're capable of taking them. Though the case with Percy is, as often, that I've had positive interactions with almost every editor on the site, you are no exception. I know you're capable of being both nice and useful.

I have no interest or ability to judge you, or PB, or anyone here. I can only respond more or less honestly when asked about my very limited scope of view, and I will try to answer as honestly as I can. That's about it. Maybe there's excellent reason for everything that befalls you quite regularly. Maybe there's not. Likely, it's a complicated mess. My point is valid regardless — there's still goodwill out there for you, all you need to do is earn it.

And the likely first step to that is to cease wikilawyering and, instead of — according to some, in a sealioning fashion — stepping up the numbers game regarding the rules and their specificity, taking a step in the other direction and saying "You know what? Maybe I'll just prove a point about who I am as a person by — just because I can — stepping away from the controversial topics and focusing on making constructive edits elsewhere". You can't deny that it would be in your power to do so. And it wouldn't be a meaningless gesture — we haven't all judged you quite yet.

That being said however, every neutral party worth his weight in salt is likely collecting data on your actions, now and for the upcoming months (assuming you don't jump straight back into the fray and get rekt before such timespans even elapse). After all, your actions are up to you. And by that, I don't just mean; the power to constantly stray the line of controversy in your edits. I mean; the power to make the free-willed choice of proving the accusers wrong, by demonstratively taking a big step away from anything remotely controversial for a good long while. Now, I concede that there is an ocean of nuance between those two scenarios, but you will admit that you are free to make it rather boring to stake your edits out. Rewarding, even, if the edits are consistently good and uncontroversial over time.

Regardless, you will be judged based on what you do. And no amount of wikilawyering will save you then. I know you can be useful without courting controversy, so please — in the words of Jean-Luc Picard — make it so. All the best, a most hopeful Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

--JorisEnter (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Well let me just say that i have no intention of getting into the nitty-gritty of Israel or any of the related issues. I just wanted someone to have a look at - what I perceived to be - incredibly stupid edits on Israel and Palestine - which by the way changed a text that had been there for months - and so I reinserted the word "Arab" that Pbfreespace3 had removed. I probably should not have done that, but I am also very weary of just letting the side that shouts louder win. Not just in this particular case but on a larger, more philosophical scale. After all, if all it takes to be the one people listen to is being the last one standing, that's not a debate culture worth having. So I tried to get a third pair of eyes - preferably someone trusted by both sides through posting in the Saloon Bar. I probably should not have done that and should have just let Pbfreespace3 have his "win". I will most likely continue to try and stay away from the topic of Israel and Palestine, because frankly, I have to deal with Hamas-apologist talking points enough off-wiki. Now I admit that I should have been clearer above, but I thought that I had been clear on that in the past. There are a bunch of written rules on this wiki, but mostly the rules that seem to count are the unwritten ones. For example, I did not know until this recent coop case how far moderator authority extends and I am still not quite sure what it includes and what it does not include. At any rate, the place where unwritten rules seems to have proliferated most are the various WIGOs. It seems that there is a somewhat fuzzy rule that WIGOs are to be considered a bit like talk page comments in that they should preferably not be edited (bar maybe typo fixing) by anyone but the principal author. Now I may be wrong in that, but that's how it seems. There seems to also have been in the past a rule of labeling some sources based on a vague concept of some sources being potentially objectionable. Now this did eventually lead to conflict as such a thing almost invariably does and when that conflict occurs I am saddened to say I was not on the sidelines. I was however - and am still - willing to get a clearer policy hashed out for the future to replace the unwritten rules to eliminate future conflict. Now - and this is crucial in my opinion because as it would appear Weaseloid's "case" such as it is rests mostly on this point - there was consensus that we do not want or require sources on every single entry. However, there was not - and is still not to my knowledge - any consensus as to whether users are allowed to add the source to their own WIGOs (as has been previously done for - as far as I can see - quite a long time) or whether users are allowed to add the source to the WIGO entry someone else has created. This is the main point where I said I am willing to follow the rule as long as the rule is clear. Because when I added sources to WIGOs, I believed to be in my full right to do that (and was not alone in that) and when I was reverted, I believed it to be just one of those things (after all, Pbfreespace3 had reverted countless users in the past over both substantial and trivial things). Of course this all escalated when Pbfreespace3 made use of his blocking privileges and ultimately Weaseloid put me into sysoprevoke and the Bin. I probably don't need to rehash that all. Now I did ask for a clarification of the exact point of contention; both when Weaseloid was removing sources and when I was reverted. I could not find anything in prior practice or in written policy that would proscribe any course of action and I did not quite want to give in just because someone disagreed with me. As I have previously said, I am glad to remove sources from WIGO articles and cease adding them if that is what the mob decides should happen, but I cannot find that decision and it seems to me, Weaseloid and/or Pbfreespace at some point value(d) their own opinion enough that they thought me a nuisance. This all might sound like wikilawyering and I apologize for that, but as I have said more often than I probably should by now, it was to me at the time a conflict between a handful of users on both sides with hot tempers and differing opinions and no side had morals or majority decision behind them. In fact, I think Jagulard even claimed an explicit decision in favor of adding sources as an optional thing editors can do. I don't think that is accurate, but I also don't think there was ever an explicit decision to the contrary. Now if you think that I should stay away from WIGO for a while as well, as my edits there could be seen as provocative no matter their content, I of course defer to your judgment. You are, after all, a bit more level headed and - crucially - not involved in this as a participant on either side. Apart from anything else, I do think there are a few here who bear me ill will and to be quite honest, there are a few whose name in recent changes does not make me think "Oh yeah, another great edit adding useful content" exactly. There has been too much fighting and drama, and while some might disagree, I think the last round could really have been prevented by a clearer rule on whether or not third parties can add sources to WIGO entries and whether or not introduced sources can be removed by (other) third parties. That is what my clarification comment was aimed at. As for Israel, I will step away from that topic even if it is only about whether Egypt and Jordan are Arab countries. It's just too stupid a fight to lose sleep over. Sincerely - I am not the Ombud's man 23:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A friendly question — could I quote you as saying, literally: "I will step away from the Israel/Palestine topic"? If so, all the more power to you. If not, I'm sure you have your reasons. And notice that the promise does not have a time frame imposed — rather, the point is to show the community how long a pledge of yours lasts, by virtue of your upcoming actions. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Amend it with "at the very least for the time being". I think it foolish to give promises or make statements for infinity minus one day and if I give a concrete time limit everybody and their uncle will only ask what happens "after" that date... But yes, with that caveat, quote me on it. I am not the Ombud's man 00:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

How about you just leave all Middle East topics the fuck alone, forever, always? This includes no more Israel/Palestine edits or even discussion. If you pledge this, I'll vote for your sysop tools to be given back. PBfreespace (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Moar Eyes[edit]

Go here, please. ~ Aneris 14:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Update, see the previous revision. ~ Aneris 14:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

What did I do?[edit]

To deserve the treatment I get here? I just want to source WIGO. And now I was binned and a "meh" template was put on my talk page. WIGO sourcer (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

--JorisEnter (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I hope I can prove worthy of your trust in me. I am not the Ombud's man 19:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I hope so, too. I hope so, too. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Same.-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 20:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

"non-troll comments?"[edit]

You said the segment I blanked on my talk page included non-troll comments, and therefore I can't remove it per the Community Standards. The explanation provided by Aneris at David Gerard's talk page is also a non-troll comment. It's not like Aneris was trolling David, he was trying to give an explanation. Therefore, it should not be blanked, correct? PBfreespace (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

What constitutes a single troll post or not varies. You are clearing out an entire discussion that you yourself participated in, alongside Joris, myself, Castaigne, et cetera. You can't argue that these cases are equally clear-cut. And again, just archive it away for time immemoriam. Who cares? Do you have any idea how much troll bullshit I've archived? Just put it there and we're good. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd be fine with David archiving the post if he doesn't want ~~people~~ to see it anymore, but he didn't do that. He just removed it entirely without archiving. Don't you think that should have been handled differently, if even only for the sole reason of making it look less bad? PBfreespace (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

As in all cases of law, there's more than a false dilemma to interpretation. Each case has its own merit. That being said however, I would argue that the community standards likely trump David's right to remove comments from both FCP and Aneris. In this case however, he's reverting a single post that's added on to the discussion. It's not a clear-cut case, and ultimately, I personally side with any interpretation that is in tune with the community standards (as imperfect as they are). Regardless, DG is, however, free to archive it away never to see the light of day again if he so wishes. (And he's also free to let it sit there and give zero fucks about it, too). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Popping back in for a moment[edit]

Hey. Despite my recent (temporary) departure I've been lurking enough to keep track of the current coop shitstorm. Despite agreeing with the mods that this is ridiculous, I can't help but feel that DG's ban proposal 1) won't work and 2) will be prime fodder for the site's critics, both in-house and driveby. In a word, reactionary, ineffective and counterproductive, and ironically, reminiscent of PB trying to ban everyone he thinks is a sock. I'm asking you this because you're on the board and I've gotten the impression that you're less prone to both anger and rash decision making than almost anyone else here- that said, if you want to remain a neutral party I totally understand. Anyways: I'm planning on sticking around tonight long enough to vote no (and possibly piss off a bunch of mods and old timers in the process), but I'm more than a little surprised by all the support the proposal is getting. Is there something I'm missing here? If you can spare a minute, I'd appreciate your thoughts. B) talk 03:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove my question from talk main page?[edit]

How could it possibly break any rules?--Mercian (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't, and it didn't. See my edit summary? Sorry for any confusion. Your baby is safe. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks.--Mercian (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Another mystery solved!

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Captcha questions[edit]

Some of us are amused by them. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I know how you feel each and every time you nail the captcha question, my friend.

I know. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Teach me how you stand steadfast against the waves breaking over your calm and collected soul[edit]

Oh, and if I ever do leave, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47Fbo4kU2AU B) talk 02:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you please have a look at circular reasoning?[edit]

There seems to be a particularly nasty and persistent troll and I really don't want to jump the gun there, so I figured further revisions on my part are probably not called for. If he was right and I am wrong, I apologize. I am not the Ombud's man 23:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe you were right. Especially in contacting someone, rather than taking it upon yourself to enforce edits at this particular time. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not the Ombud's man 23:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I followed +++your+++ suggestion[edit]

Regarding my signature. Please tell me whether there is a rule that says the user page link has to come before the talk page link. another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 02:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Another Swedish conspiracy, eh? Well then, time for you to bone up on the ol' instruction manual! (And, to the best of my knowledge, there is no rule about that — though my knowledge of signatures and the rules befalling them is close to nil). Better confirm that it's OK with someone more knowledgeable, so you don't risk getting your nuts slammed in a door by somebody over a technicality like that. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Who'd be a user with more knowledge that I could ask? another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 14:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there any way in hell I can get out of the bin?[edit]

No, right? The last coop case seems to me to prove that there does not even need to be any specific "misdeed" for me to be put in the bin (can anybody even recall what the initial trigger was?) and there is a large enough contingent of users (including two mods) who will vote against me no matter what happened for this to be a fool's errand. Trying to convince Gerard and Weaseloid is usually only met with accusations of "wikilawyering" and as I hint at in my Essay it is nearly impossible for a binned user to get back into the good graces of whoever instituted the binning.

I would like to be wrong about this, and if I am please tell me, but I fear I am not, so this likely is goodbye. If I come back, I won't be able to tell you, because if I read the last coop correctly "being me" is enough for binning and banning.

At any rate, it has been a hell of a ride and an honor. I hope this wiki manages to gather and/or retain more folk like you and I wish you all the best in the next mod elections, should you stand.

This wiki does have problematic users, but it is not for me to judge who they are. And I think problematic users are at the very least in part a product of problematic (lack of) rules.

You can run a small-ish wiki with little rules if you have one cardinal rule: No politics. If you don't, you gotta have rules for civil discourse. That's just my two cents. And as a friend of the Napoleonic/Roman tradition of law over the Germanic/English, I like law to be set into words rather than precedent.

At any rate, goodbye and thank you. And if you can give me any realistic way out of the bin, I will try to do that. But I fear that is beyond your power. Which I do not begrudge you in the least. It's not your fault.

This is getting too long already, so, goodbye. another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 20:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Now where have I seen this before...--JorisEnter (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Misunderstanding stacked upon misunderstanding piled high, loaded with maple syrup[edit]

So you reverted joris' revert of Aneris' edit to the Aneris template, on the charge that it's all in good fun. But, and I know this logic is convoluted and hard to follow in text, Aneris' removal of the word madame was made with the attached edit summary of "removed unsubstantiated assumption".

Okay, so Aneris, then was assuming the gender directive was either at him or the reader, when in fact, in the original writing it was referencing the manner of speaking of a cliche movie detective. Which means when you reverted you were thinking you were protecting their own right to control the sense of humor of the thing, but when they made the change in the first place it (apparently) came from a misunderstanding of what the template was trying to say(namely that aneris is female or talking to women in their posts).

So all of that surplus means... I think you aren't fighting for what you think you're fighting for(unless I'm wrong, in which case, even more time wasted). ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the original intention was to sound more like Clouseau (a character whom I love, for the record). But since FCP got all nervous and delete-y with a ridiculous charge of "textbook bullying" (even though Aneris himself showed enough good humor to place the template on his very own talkpage) I felt it important to let Aneris have a say (and he never made any charges of bullying, afaik). And since Aneris also took the whole template — good old-fashioned snark, as it was intended to be — with a light heart, I figured that his edit might as well stand. But if people think "madame" is simply funnier (and more true to Clouseau), of course it can say "madame". That's fine too. It's all in good spirit, atleast on my end. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Something has to be done about you[edit]

Look, you cunt. I lost an entire passage with sources due to your edit conflict. Do I have to look over my shoulder at all times in preparation for your witless meddling? Go choke on a dick and leave the editing to the grown ups. Do it again, and I'm taking you to the coop.

Fuck you very much .Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Consider yourself cooped, you ridiculous ape. Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

MFW the above all of a sudden[edit]

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Organizing my comment on WWP talkpage[edit]

Thanks, I appreciate it. I was editing late at night on my phone I didn't care about the readability.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem! I had hoped you wouldn't think it was out of order of me to do so.

All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Coop case[edit]

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment.

FuzzyCatPotato of the Satanic Magnets (talk/stalk) 04:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

A little birdie already whispered as much in my ear. Still; I appreciate your kind efforts.

All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Essay comment[edit]

The essay is not copyrighted material. Of course I will recreate it with your permission. Gewgtweg (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough! Just pay attention to the fine print by the edit box:

Please note that all contributions to RationalWiki are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0, or any later version (see RationalWiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.

I trust you know what you're doing. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I am practicing decent editing/formatting skills (sections, citations, indentation etc.) on the sandbox and will continue to work on what I've already uploaded to upgrade general quality. I, too, trust and hope to avoid attracting further editor attention (and irritation) in future. Be that as it may, I thank you and the others for your proper guidance and support. Gewgtweg (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No problems, my friend. Practice makes perfect! And conversely, nobody can expect excellence from a beginner. It's all good dawg. Best of luck and please feel free to ask if anything crosses your mind. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Larry Sanger's reasons for leaving Wikipedia were well documented - by himself[edit]

Restore the damage you just did to Citizendium - or at least name what needs "missing sources"? That is what "citation needed" is for. Open links to names of persons or concepts easily found on any search engine are not "missing sources", e.g. Florence Devouard or "User:Anthere" on Wikimedia and Wikipedia, former Chair of its foundation, takes about one second to verify. If RationalWiki doesn't yet have an article on a person only about a thousand to ten thousand times more influential and important than Larry Sanger, that's sad for RationalWiki, but it will never get one if you delete references to her relevance. As for Sanger's motives for leaving Wikipedia, his ad hominem arguments, specific charges that Jimmy Wales had let the project be taken over by "trolls", etc., he said all that himself on the meta-wikipedia talk page linked, which is a reliable source.

There is much more, like Sanger and Wales long standing dispute about whether Sanger was a "co-founder" or not, which Wales seemed to be denying for legal reasons, but given Citizendium's failure due to Sanger's autocracy and paranoia, his earlier tendencies to same on Wikipedia are notable and newsworthy. The specific measures (independent board, systemic bias prevention, focus on the absolute poor of the world, due process, inclusionism) initially proposed by persons whom Sanger described as enemies and eventually adopted by Wikipedia itself, were certainly important reasons why Wikipedia thrived and Citizendium died. So this history is rather important to online communities and rational debate and deliberation. You are, unfortunately, behaving exactly like Sanger in demanding "sources" beyond Sanger and a search engine. Certainly you can't hope to find academic or journalistic articles about all this, since the discourse about it is entirely online.

I'd hate to think RationalWiki had its own Sanger... ^{— Unsigned, by: 96.30.183.189 / talk / contribs}

Hello! Terrific to see that you decided to present yourself in a grumpy and entitled way. That's likely to help you.

First of all; calling on me to "restore the damage I did" is quite the loaded proposition, wouldn't you agree? Especially considering the fact that it was your damage I was undoing.

Secondly; if you think the way this wiki works is that any drive-by BoN can dump a bunch of statements in a mainspace article on a living person, declaring that it's now somehow up to other editors to source said statements, you are gravely mistaken.

Thirdly; just providing a link to the history or talk page of an account on another wiki is about the opposite of a specific citation. Now you're just being difficult.

Fourthly; your edits weren't even formatted properly. Ever heard of ref tags?

Finally; the fact that you have one interaction with me in which you don't immediately have your broken way (see points two to four above), and then — based on that alone — go on to openly accuse me of "behaving just like Sanger" (?) signals quite powerfully that you are a crank.

Consider taking a walk outside. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't know why I thought globalresearch.ca was a good source on the Stopped Clock page...[edit]

That was a major fuck up on my part, it's really early for me, tried finding any article/source I could, was lazy and picked that one. I'll find a better source for that one, if and when I can. --64.134.38.163 (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Haha, no problem. Also, keep in mind that sources from globalresearch.ca are relevant — to our article on globalresearch, however (which I assume you've read?). Anyways, thanks for taking the time to write to me. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Scheming Weasel[edit]

However did you come across that delightful piece of music? Anyway, I want to thank you for sending me to the "Kevin MacLeod (composer)" category on Wikimedia Commons. I had a lot of fun there. Spud (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

How about you get off your ass[edit]

And address some of the concerns in the Clinton talk page. You lazy fucker. Plutoniumboss (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Dat feel when you alternate between accusing me of following all that you do, and of being a lazy fucker for not following all that you do. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Can we please return to courtesy? Worzelpete (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Good luck. Funny, seems like he's being a little lazy about replying to you. And to me. Meh, he's probably just a normal human being with better things to do than stare at his watchlist all day. B) talk 15:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

brb, busy torrenting porn Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Make sure you don't get addicted, friend! Shit happened to m- oh, but you already knew that. Do you recommend aloe, immersion in lukewarm water, or something else to treat this? B) talk 16:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikileaks edit[edit]

I moved this quote because I felt like it didn't tell me about what WikiLeaks is. I won't again, though.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Reminder cough[edit]

Meeting tomorrow. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 19:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, old soul!

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Tough request[edit]

Can you give me a high five?! ClothCoat (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

On manufactroversy[edit]

I saw that you reverted the edit but I would appreciate you commenting on the talkpage.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hugh Mungus[edit]

Hey RBP! How's life mate? Haven't spoken to you in a while, glad I finally found some time (and a topic :3) to speak with you. I enjoy our chats, you're really kind, polite and you're very respectful of others (which are attributes that, sadly, not many of my personal friends have). Anyhow, from our previous bit of banter it came clear to me that you do follow h3h3, so, you have probably heard or seen the Hugh Mungus (for the lack of a better word) drama. I wanted to know your opinion on it. Now that recently the drama has been reanimated with the funding fiasco, I think this is a perfect time to discuss this. Personally, I feel a bit sorry for Rudy; in the h3h3 interview he seemed like such a nice guy. I'd love to hear what you think of this entire situation :).--WMS (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

By the way, you're still doing ok, right buddy? Just lately having been hearing much from you and, well, you know how it is: always thinking the worst. Hope everything's ok and hope you're having a good day, friend :)

.--WMS (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Darn it, my orientation skills seem to be lacking again. It seems like you have already answered my question in the saloon bar a few days ago. Darn, should really visit that more often. Sorry for asking a question that you already answered :).--WMS (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Quick announcement[edit]

I've been terrible at responding to people on my talkpage the past week(s). I'll get around to answering everybody this weekend (knock on wood — ADHD). You all deserve better. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Only one edit per 30 minutes #3060[edit]

I am only able to make one edit per 30 minutes, kindly remove this restriction on me. #3060 Rukmaniahuja (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to be upset. You got yourself vandal binned in your initial blanking spree. Take your time and make sure your edits are worthwhile, and you will get yourself out of the vandal bin. Begging is a major turn-off. All he best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

There was no blanking spree. The article on MGTOW is completely incorrect and I was correcting it one step at a time. I agree that I must have posted on Talk Page before doing that, that's was a mistake, but there was no blanking spree. Also, yesterday I made an entry into MGTOW Talk page talking about how the whole thing needs to be completely re-written, you are free to have a look at it and tell me if I am wrong.Most importantly, if you have interpreted my previous messages as "begging", I seriously doubt the future of rationalwiki.

Do you have some sources?[edit]

Per revert, you assert TJ Kirk had opinions "almost total" as those of the neoreactionary movement, among others. Of course, as usual such extreme assertions are without sources and apparently it doesn't bother you. I am genuinely puzzled by this. Let me try to bridge the usual communication difficulties.

101: You make the claim, the burden is on you.
In contrast, I have no objection when sources (that is: himself) establish some fact.
You don't provide sources and you don't deem it important. Others have the same attitude. I assume it was somehow obvious, but it isn't at all.
Though I only watched an occasional video by TJ Kirk, I believe I know the atheist corner quite well and never came across such outlandish views that anyone of note wanted e.g. feudalism back.
In what year did the film with the character Indiana Smith come out, and did you like Tom Selleck's performance?
Many anti SJWs have libertarian tendencies, so how they somehow morph into authoritarians is even more bizarre. Maybe the neocreationary article is just utter nonsense?
Conversely, political education of RW editors is occasionally quite funky, aka "everyone I don't like is everything I don't like, authoritarian feudalist Stalinist libertarian, with fascistic tendencies, somewhat like a Maoist Ronald Reagan, misogynistic Thatcherite!" — like above, if you can clear that up, I'm happy to read it.
How can an anti SJW YouTube atheists, and TJ is a typical example, both be known as New Atheist shitlords, and yet the neoreactionary article is explicitly saying they are against Dawkins etc (with heavy references to some "Moldbug")? I don't get it.

I included one secret trick question. So what is it, is he in near total agreement with libertarianism, or authoritarianism? Or both somehow? Is he against Dawkins or a Dawkbro? No doubt, it's annoying that I ask, but you should develop a sense just how outlandish some assertions look like. ~ Aneris ✻ 17:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, thanks and apologies[edit]

Hey, I'd like to apologise for that messy Hugh Mungus topic on your talk page. I wanted to talk to you and that was the only topic I could think of; after no response anxiety took over and I started getting paranoid that I did something to make you not want to speak to me. I hope you don't mind that erratic and messy post, friend.

In addition, I also wanted to thank you for that time when I added something onto my talk page which was quite self deprecating. It meant a lot when you removed that and even gave a compliment that I'm a 'lovely person'. I doubt anyone I know in person would have the courtesy to do what you did so thank you very much for that you! It means a lot to me .

Also, I'd like to (again) apologies for taking so long to thank you for that very nice act of kindness. I have no clue why it took me so long to thank you, I should have done it as soon as I saw the edit. Again, sorry for taking so long and thank you for being so kind :) .--WMS (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

You are a lovely person, but don't forget — you don't need me telling you that. That's because the fact of your loveliness is forged out of who you are, how you conduct yourself. By calling you lovely, I'm merely pointing out what is plain to see for anyone who interacts with you. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Thanks for posting that video in the Saloon. I've also done some soul-searching about Trump's win, and I think that video really helped. Thanks. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope this video helps too — it's so important that we don't get drawn into the general cult of outrage (no matter "which side" promotes it, as it's made up of "both sides"). If I may, I'd also like to recommend this video from The School of Life. It's about our ever-present biases. We can't afford to forget we have them — just like everybody else — lest we treat our fellow human beings much too harshly. All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

We should vote[edit]

Hi man, i don't want to be a nuisance but i've been discussing with him for almost 3 days and he still won't listen to what i have to say, he simply doesn't care. I had to protect the main page because he continued to edit without consensus. Since we can't find an agreement, i think we should ask the Community to vote. What do you suggest?--Sofer (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

IMHO Sofer seems to not get that this isn't wikipedia but rationalwiki and while we do try to use references when possible (the more reliable the better) we also have the ability to make a judgement call on the quality of those sources. I have already presented reliable sources and logic to back up your agreement with my point and because the talk page there has degenerated to a TLDR mess I will present a thumbnail of the relevant material.

"In practice, there exists as well a "unitarianism of Jesus Christ," better called a "henotheism of the Son," that comes to expression in Marcion" Ted Peters's God as Trinity Westminster John Knox Press

"Christocentrism in particular can reduce to the "henotheism" of the church, the fideism of its internal doctrines, an anthropocentrism that guarantees human salvation and eternal life" - American Protestant Ethics and the Legacy of H. Richard Niebuhr Georgetown University Press

In the article I now use George Dearborn Spindler (1978) The Making of Psychological Anthropology University of California Press page 241 to back up the statement "in some cultures saints have indeed become just another face of already existing pagan deities" so that is now referenced.

Maybe I am explaining it poorly but this is beyond ridiculous.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the block as I couldn't even add anything more then the above to your talk page (it wasn't just against the Christianity article but throughout Rationalwiki). Is that a bug in the way blocking someone works here or is is a bug? Also given your "Sofer, page protection is useless against sysops. Please do not protect this page." comment does that mean you are a sysop?--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem, but just know that me unblocking you is not an endorsement of your edits or of your position, per se. As I explain below, I need time to even get a grip on this. I would appreciate if we could just lower the temperature on this whole thing. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion is over[edit]

The user BruceGrubb continued with his persistent vandal edits without consensus instead of debating politely with me. I had to block him and protect the main page more than once. For this reason, the discussion is over.--Sofer (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I've turned in your badge and your gun. You no longer have sysop. Speaking of consensus — we don't just declare discussions to be "over" here (see Danth's law). If you "don't have time for this", get off the computer and deal with whatever is more important in your life instead. RationalWiki is not a chatroom, nor even a forum — discussions are normally held over weeks here. This is to give people the time to join in, as opposed to giving precedence to any single user who declares he's out of time. I'm not saying that I condone BG's edits — I'm one such person who haven't even had the time to really join in and understand your positions — but what I am saying is that we don't abuse our sysop tools to "win" arguments. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean to do that in order to "win", i had to block him because he didn't stop to vandalize the main page. We've been discussing for 4 days, but he doesn't listen to what i have to say and edits without consensus while the debate is still open.--Sofer (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Look, nobody here is the devil. But you guys both need to calm down. Let BG edit — if the edits aren't a literal improvement, expect me to just roll them back. But in order for me to be able to do anything — including trying to get a clue on what you guys are really discussing — I need time. Not canvassing, not the expansion of your discussion onto my talk page. Just time. Days. Show some good faith to one another and remember there's a whole world outside of the computer. Thanks in advance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You cited Danth's law: well, that's basically what happened to me during this days, trying to make BG think for the entire time:

As an internet discussion grows and grows, it's often tempting to declare victory and move on, especially if you've rammed the point home too many times and your opponent just ignores everything you say. In this case, declaring victory and moving on may be legitimate and excusable.

I'm sorry to say that, but that's what it is. It got pointless, i didn't want to block him, seriously, but i didn't know what to do. However, when i said i don't have time it's because i have to work during the day, and i can't follow the discussion for the rest of the night. And, this time, things took too long.--Sofer (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The very concept of things having "taken too long" (in the context of a drawn-out talk page discussion) is faulty. Please, dude. Take some space. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, what should i do then? Do you want me to leave it to you? I'm fine with that.--Sofer (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's not that it's "up to me" in any sense. I'm just saying, give it time. Hopefully more users will join in (without having to be recruited with spam) and we'll develop the discussion based on what the mob argues. Again, it's no big deal if BG's edits are up for a day or two (even if they would turn out to be bad). Better to just let him make them and show us what he's got. Trust that I will mercilessly edit them if need be. But for now, please give things time. Relax. Let people trickle in to the discussion. And let me sleep now, lol. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a rest too. Bye.--Sofer (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Sofer, appreciate it. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I must say I wasn't happy with Sofer's rollback of my efforts to address the "Unsourced statements that don't fit with anything written in this paragraph)" issue with some seven references including a work published by the University of California Press that was promptly nuked under the guise of "Vandalism". Danth's law also states "When combined with the ability to expel someone from the discussion, Danth's Law takes on a more sinister tone - indicating that a group or individual can only defend themselves on their own terms, through the medium of extreme deceit." The wording is a little too dense for my liking but I was trying to keep it as tightly focused as possible. It needs a lot of improvement but there are some important points in it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Like I say above, I've yet to form an opinion (and I don't want the discussion expanded to my talkpage). Regardless of if I rewrite or revert, what I won't stand for (assuming the facts are straight) is clunky additions packed to the brim with technical jargon, yet devoid of snark. Give us your best shot. Worst case, more people will dislike it than like it and your proposed changes will either be reworked or removed. You've got nothing to lose. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I have gone back and done a mammoth clean up (creating a subsection to make it flow better) and made it a little more neutral.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Neat — I'll take a look at it when I get the time. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I have gone back and tightened that section up so it isn't a rambling mess and tried to tie it better to the schism comment above that section. Though it might fit better in the Doctrine part of the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

They Fight Crime![edit]

Hi. You don't think the "The entire affair also begs the question: why a 1983 case? Why not a more recent case that's fresh in everyone's memory?" stuff is a bit pointless? Tsakiris was asked to "find the best case you can find", to pick one that was airtight, and that may well have been an old one by a disinterested psychic. If this is a sly suggestion that Tsakiris may have deliberately picked an old case because it would be harder to research, let's say that.

And eh, I thought the opening joke was a good one but seemed a bit lost with the "courageous miracle-workers" preamble. Surely all psychic mediums and doctors and plumbers see themselves like this. --Qwop (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Nah, I think it's fair. The whole elephant in the room regarding psychics is why they don't actually seem to be using their abilities for anything other than parlor tricks (read: they're not actually psychic to begin with).

I did shorten down the crime thing a little, so it read "sans the latex". I thought that was a good golden mean. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, would have thought that went without saying. Just thought that "Pick the best case in all of history." "Okay, this one from 1983." "(Suspicious! Why didn't he pick a more recent one?)" seemed weirdly nitpicky, and distracts from the stronger endpoint that Radford found no evidence of anything. --Qwop (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough! I removed it. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Qwop (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

A suggestion[edit]

Maybe deleting the mgtow page is for the best. 1:It seems to get this place alot of unwanted people here. (Like me) 2:The page is more of a hate group. All most as if some got rejected by a mgtow. 3:It will save you time of not fixing it every time one of the mgtow guys chang it. ^{— Unsigned, by: 107.72.164.20 / talk / contribs}

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)