User talk:Reverend Black Percy/Archive6

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 18 July 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <7>, (new)(back)


Edit Warring?[edit]

Hey, so I actually looked at your last bit on the page It looks like you locked the page for edit warring 24 days after the last edit . . . When you commented about edit warring on the talk page, I thought you were serious (hence, my mild defense) but was it one of these rational wiki jokes that went over my head? If so, sorry about that. I'm a little dense at times. --Bertrc (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ article[edit]

I have gone through and pulled out a lot of the Jesus Myth material from the Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ article as well as moved things around in an effort to clean the thing up as well as try (likely in vain) to prevent the article's continual drift into being about the Jesus Myth (which it isn't).--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Write what?[edit]

Be more specific. (P.S., if you have private email I'd like to send you a message; for the record some of "them" are slightly onto me, but I'll explain in more detail in private).--BrittanyPBone (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how I could be more specific, frankly. I mean, just in terms of clarity. I linked you to the essay in question.
Here it is once again:
In an effort to be more specific (like you instruct me to), I'll restate my earlier question — did you write the above linked essay? Just curious.
Anyone is free to e-mail me at, though I rarely check my email (but I check in here at the site atleast daily, add or take).
And just for the record, I have no idea who these "they" you speak of are. But hey, I'm still open to being awoken.
Regardless, writing to me the way Alex Jones talks gets most people anywhere with me. And I actually don't mean that in a salty way. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
You make too many assumptions; I'll shoot you an email soon, but for what it's worth Alex Jones works for big corporations including Bain Capital's IHeartMedia, so I'd say he's an infotainer who likely doesn't believe anything he says about "evil corporate globalists" or whatever, and no one should take him with more than a grain of salt, a la Jesse Ventura. But I'll explain things to you soon.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I don't know that questions imply assumptions on my end... I wasn't just asking questions, hard as that might be to believe. And I do tend to joke around a lot as well, so, y'know — always factor that in. I'm a happy camper, mostly. "Almost" boring, even. Regardless; you know where to find me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


What is your rationale behind undoing my edits? Kodak (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, the rollback button doesn't allow for edit summaries. I found your edits removed way too much snark and useful images, among other things. I'd like to get the community's opinion, of course. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


Was I wrong to rollback his edit of the Obama Citizenship Denial article? It's kind of a PRATT by now.RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

No, you were most right to do so! I was about to rollback the edit myself. His edit constituted vandalism. Hilariously, had he posted his call for us to WAKE UP on the talkpage instead, it would merely have amounted to crankery (but not vandalism). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I can get a free trip to Sweden from a conspiracy nutter[edit]

there's a chance, right? I don't think this fine fellow understands that "crime ridden" in Sweden is pretty tame compared to "safe city" in the US. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a war zone over here, man! Dodging bullets from my place in Malmö as we speak (Pssst don't let him see this, you'll lose your free trip!).
But seriously dude, you should take him up on this lol. I don't think he realizes how far he's ridden his own derailed hype train if he seriously believes that literally any portion of Sweden where people live is remarkably dangerous. Facepalm
We're a (comparatively) really rich, really progressive democratic country, of merely 10 million people in total, which hasn't seen war in 200 years. Trust me when I say we're not exactly a smoldering crater — and yes, that's even considering trying to give civilian refugees of war their lives back. Pretty Christian of us for Atheists, methinks.
Could you honestly do me the favor of atleast trying to get tickets from him, lol? Too funny man Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Nah, that tweet is already dog-piled with people begging for free tickets to malmo, there's no chance this guy is going to put his money where his mouth is. That only gives him a chance to be proven wrong, and he can just keep saying he's right for free. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
But of course. All talk and no walk. Reminds me of this fact. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, no, follow up, he's decided to pay for an InfoWars "reporter" to go "report" on the "crime" in malmo. Sour grapes but: I'm going to GDC with my girlfriend next week anyhow, so I don't really have the vacation time for Sverige right now. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hahaha, are you fucking kidding me?
1. The guy goes "Journalists who don't read InfoWars and doubt my claims! I will personally fund your trip to independently visit Sweden and see for yourself!"
2. <challenge is instantly taken up by hundreds of people>
3. "I have decided to send an InfoWars insider who never doubted my claims to literally look for what I've been claiming is going on there!"
Atleast they're being Fair and Balanced. Facepalm Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and enjoy GDC with your lovely lass! Th hug.gif There's always time for Sverige later. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Joshua Conner Moon[edit]

I broadly agree with your AFD comment about refocusing away from Internet drama. However, I've heavily altered the structure and content of the JCM page. Please check if it passes your "internet drama" bar. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Ossuary of James[edit]

Thanks for bringing the nonsense being given on the Ossuary of James' talk page to my attention. I have rightly slammed Korvexman's claim "the IAA has now ruled out the forgery claim and no longer posits that it is forged" by producing references to two articles on the Israel Antiquities Authority's own website that still state the Ossuary of James is a forgery. --BruceGrubb (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


Hi there, Percy! Take a look at the new megavitamin therapy page that I added to the vitamin supplement page. This was inspired from our conversation on vitamin C a little while ago. Bongolian (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Ossuary of James[edit]

Reverend -- why exactly did you remove my undo of Bruce's ridiculous edit and then close editing on the Ossuary of James page? He removed ANY reference to Andre Lemaire's study regarding the authenticity of the ossuary, which is the most important and authoritative study in the field on the ossuary. He then completely removed all discussion of who "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" for absolutely no reason and explanation, and added nothing except noting that the location of where the ossuary was found is unknown. How could you allow such a nonsensical edit which sliced away the important bibliographical sources and discussion on the page? Bruce is incapable of looking past his presuppositions, especially on the James Ossuary, and thus profits from destroying valuable data.Korvexman (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


Meeting today. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 17:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk Policies of Donald Trump‎ page[edit]

What did I miss out to link up to the Funspace article? (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Come again? :) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I want to link up my comment on the above talk page to [1] - how do I tell the wiki-programming to do so? (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Like this! Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - could there be a RW equivalent of the 'problem solving guide' at the back of most equipment handbooks (the part which starts with 'Is the item plugged in? Is it switched on? Why is my fridge making all these peculiar noises ('Because it does') for those of us who want to enlighten their ignorance quickly (including 'things done very rarely, however expert one is'). (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. I'd second that. Zionist Goy (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

"second turn" in the French Presidential election[edit]

Can you please remove the bad English "second turn" and replace it with the proper term in this article? Zionist Goy (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi! What do you want changed, exactly? The word "turn" into "term"? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Saw the context now. You want it to say "round" instead? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Either "second round" or runoff. "Second turn" is just bad English. Zionist Goy (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


Where should we put that entry of mine? Under the fascism article, maybe? Under the main Trump article?Serocco 00:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it okay if I reinstate the following edit?[edit]

Owlman reverted me here. Is it okay if I put this back in? Zionist Goy (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a good analysis! However, Owlman was right to complain that the segment utilizes 0 sources.
Even so, you should have little trouble inserting the necessary citations (in <ref> tags) where needed before re-inserting the analysis.
Also, when writing a numbered list, please format it using the numbered list function (#), as this looks better on the page.
If these requirements are met, I will support your addition! Th hug.gif All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I will see whether I can find some good sources. Those arguments are - at least in part - stuff I have heard in discussions myself. Another thing, I have to enter the captcha once more, after someone made me able to edit without it. Can you please have a look at that? Zionist Goy (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
And now I am getting the following error message "You are unable to edit because you have been placed into the vandal bin.

You were put in the vandal bin by Owlman and the reason given was: "Blanking page content: It wasn't fun while it lasted, Avenger, don't come again". While we hope you had fun, we had to do something, so you can only make one edit every 30 minutes now. If this is a mistake or you have turned a new leaf please alert any sysops. You will be able to edit again in 28 minutes. The block ID is #3126. Please include this in any queries. " this is weird, can you please have a look at that as well? Zionist Goy (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I've looked through your contributions and there have been only 2 edits where you removed a substantial amount of content. One was the Palestine thing on Black Lives Matter which everyone agreed had to go. The other one I don't think is nearly enough to warrant being vandal binned. I'll unbin you. Christopher (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. What was the other one? By the way, Owlman has reinstated the black lives matter edit, which you say "everyone agreed had to go". I still think it should be removed. Zionist Goy (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't actually look at the section just the talk page item on it. There actually isn't much of a consensus to remove it or keep it. Christopher (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Some of us[edit]

Enjoy the captchas - rather than having to 'think up yet another username' :) (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Carl Sagan[edit]

Greetings. Regarding your revert of my Carl Sagan edit, I admit I was a bit lax by not giving full credentials to the sources. It was this very book:
I'm not sure how to add that detailed info to the page in such a way it would look orderly and consistent with the rest. Could you perhaps help me? Thanks. Loc (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for letting me know (and for conceding that my criticisms were valid). I'm a bit on-and-off on the site these days — I tend to have decently persistent high-activity periods, interspersed with shorter periods of low site presence — but sure, I could throw it on my to-do pile. If you want this dealt with a lot faster however, I'd advise you to ask someone like Bongolian, JorisEnter or FuzzyCatPotato for help. They're all very active and knowledgable about both evaluating sources and adding references properly. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Dylann Roof[edit]

Can we mark the article Dylann Roof for deletion? I looked around but couldn't find a way to mark it (though it may be a section I missed in the newcomer's guide). Anim (Carfa) 15:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it Anim (Carfa) 15:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I just deleted it. It was never going to survive the article for deletion process. When nominating an article for deletion you need to follow the 3 steps that appear below the template. It's not enough to just add the {{delete}} template. It's fine, just for future reference.Christopher (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


Avoiding coverage of internet drama is probably a good idea. However, I'm inclined to create another quoticle (a la Joshua Conner Moon) about JonTron, for similar reasons: [1] He has 3.1 million subscribers and 0.4 billion views[1] and [2] his ideas are "alt-lite" -- white ethnostate fan who hasn't achieved Nazi status -- and it'd be nice if people were aware of that. I've put the potential quotes below. What do you think? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS BoN[edit]

Hi Percy! I have commented on the HIV/AIDS BoN, but the topic is actually outside my areas of expertise. More eyes on this would be helpful. Perhaps a call for opinions at the Saloon? Bongolian (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Bottled water[edit]

Ah, I see it now:

"The Drinking Water Research Foundation (DWRF) is an independent, not-for-profit 501 (c) 3 foundation that was established in 1984 by several members of the bottled water and point of use drinking water filtration industries."

Also, seeing Nestle Waters of North America, Inc. and Absopure Water Co., Inc. raised my eyebrow, but this article seemed to make sense and Wikipedia did cite this, which also was backed by a testimony from an FDA official, though how can we refute that? The content on the page doesn't seem terrible at a first glance, and I've looked at this which seemed more informative than trying to slant me one way. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 05:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

oh come on, how is dehydrated water in bottles not funny. =3 2d4chanfag (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The idea of dehydrated water is pretty funny. Or perhaps better yet: freeze-dried dihydrogen monoxide. Sold in empty bottles with the perky instruction; "Simply add water!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother talk page[edit]

Hi there. I saw your revert, but did not see your reasoning in the edit summary or on the talk page. Would you mind providing one (preferrably on the talk page of the article in reply to my post there)? (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Aaand I'm getting the silent treatment. Look, I get that you are less inclined to talk to a random BoN with no apparent site cred, but I am actually a pleasant guy to talk to, so please. (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Re:Water fluoridation[edit]

Can debates get any more contentious, and what usually happens at the end of this, when neither side will budge? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 06:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The status quo resumes — meaning, widespread scientific acceptance of the virtues of fluoridation. I mean, even if we budged (and sided with the crank), we'd all just be wrong together. This elephant in the room was avoided entirely by the crank in question.
And it's no wonder he avoided said "bottom line". I speak from experience when I say that: being asked to put one's crank beliefs in a wider context is a quite dissonant experience, and is actively (though, subconsciously) avoided by the crank for that reason.
This, assuming the crank isn't actually fractally wrong, but just holds unorthodox views on particular topics (though numerous as they may be).
As such, the only "hope" to consistently hold for this type of "encounters" with cranks is for a therapeutic outcome — and hoping out of genuinely good will.
Meaning that; the one entirely positive result of a discussion like the one you name is a discussion wherein the crank budges on his own — in having done so, leaving the world with one more person who has learned first-hand how skilled the mind can be at tricking itself that it's right and everyone else is wrong.
Ultimately, nothing is actually "settled" via discussions on RW (of all places). Not to say that it's all meaningless — what the discussions do provide is an important "contact surface" between people of strongly opposing views, as well as a chance to practice rhetoric (and how to overcome it) in addition to providing a brilliant opportunity to reflect on cognitive biases, generally.
I'm admittedly going out on a limb here, but just for the sake of argument... I even wonder if one of the subconscious reasons why cranks decide to seek out skeptics and argue with us (which they clearly do) is that; since the crank theories themselves provide no internal reinforcement whatsoever (meaning — e.g. the case of Intelligent Design — they're not actually theories in-and-of themselves, but rather a long list of percieved anomalies in the mainstream theory — a sort of "anti-theory"), the cranks actually rely on triggering the backfire effect in themselves to sustain their own certainty of view.
I wonder if they "feed" on being offered debunkings, since psychologically, simply being argued against allows for the crank's prior beliefs to set in deeper. As such, they ask for more. And more they get — and the effect is enhanced additionally, starting up a positive feedback loop.
If so, then — after the discussion has dragged on for a while — they can claim victory (or just close their browser) and waddle off in contentment, rushing with that wonderfully rewarding sensation of knowing yourself to be the proud owner of views which can apparently withstand serious scrutiny.
In other words — they've managed to trick themselves into believing that their views are in fact quite solid, when the reality is that the reason the crank viewpoint couldn't be "debunked" from the outside is because cranks have no "real" viewpoint. What they have in place of an actual explanatory theory is a vague, hyper-flexible position of "doubt" — an approach which most cranks pass off as a virtue, even.
In support of this hypothesis of mine, you will have noticed that the crank argument isn't so much "I'm right" as it is "You're wrong". As such, their position is inherently comfortable. Indeed, it can go something like this:
  1. "Hey, I'm just hoping to get some rational answers!"
  2. "But that's illogical, considering the following..."
  3. "You've consistently failed to answer any of my questions..."
  4. "More like IRRATIONALwiki, considering your apparent blind fundamentalism."
Since there's no real method — no assumption that one's own view is wrong, no reasonable credit given to the outside consensus, and no inclusion of non-select, positive facts — it follows that there is no consistent worldview (outside of their own confirmation bias). It's all just self-serving sniping — and, based on personal experience, I don't think they even realize they're doing it!
As much of a waste of time as that might all sound to engage with, however, these types of "meetings" serve (rather crucially) to provide us skeptics with important observational data on how certain cranks reason surrounding certain topics. This relates to why it is that it's not enough to know a crank's conclusion — say, for example, that someone is a climate change denier.
The fact is, there are many mutually incompatible reasons to give for denying climate change, and elucidating them all (in relation to one another) is key to understanding the wider issue at hand, and where the opposition to it is coming from.
Regardless, in my view — the RW talk pages function as sort of a "skeptic's lab", one might say. Instead of colliding particles, we collide cranks, and observe what happens. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Some variation of Big BrotherWikipedia perhaps? (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
A good consequence I had from this discussion is that I wasn't too knowledgeable about water fluoridation prior, but this discussion helped me examine the issue and even rummage through Wikipedia talk pages. Too bad Google search on water fluoridation didn't bring up very good results. I still looked at the "anti-fluoridation" sites though, just to be fair about this person's views, but it's hard fighting against your bias. Thanks for the explanation, though. I'm new to this. I usually engage with cranks expecting intellectual honesty on their end and working to get to a point, but any way to tell if someone has honest questions or is just trying to talk to firmly trigger this back-fire effect? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Just saying hello[edit]

-💠💿☝️ (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Th hug.gif Please enjoy the above documentary on what it feels like for people to try and get ahold of me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia links[edit]

Thanks, Reverend, for updating the Craig article! Didn't know how to add Wikipedia links!! — Unsigned, by: Jehanne / talk / contribs

No problem — thank you! Keep up the good work Th hug.gif All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Saw this and thought of you[edit]

Heidegger in the kitchen Anim (Carfa) 12:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear it Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Just so you know...[edit]

...I voted for you to win the Limerick contest. Well done, sir. Very well done. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, buddy! I'm just glad if any of my submissions managed to put a smile on someone's face for a minute. Which one was your favorite? ^^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Probably this one:

Chemtrails must turn people gay,

It's all in that deviant spray!

Some damn plane in the sky,

Must've hit a bullseye,

Cause I can't stop watching men's ballet!

The idea of Alex Jones watching men's (or women's, for that matter) ballet cracked me up. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


What happens when blocks overlap? Also, is there a sort of standard for block length? Or is it a case-by-case basis? If it was in the Sysop guide I must have missed it. Edhelrimdil (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh also, I didn't mean to block over you, my action just submitted a second after yours Edhelrimdil (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
No worries, friend. Th hug.gif
It's supposed to warn you in red by saying "This user is already blocked!" or something to that effect.
If it didn't, that's because you must've opened your block dialog before I finished blocking the same guy.
What happens when you block someone who is already blocked is, you change the existing block to whatever your new block is set for — as such, blocks don't stack.
This is good to know if you want to "adjust" a block, either to make it shorter or to make it longer (for whatever reason).
Note that the mods manual states that sysops are not to "adjust" any blocks (of anyone) given by moderators, however.
Being a moderator means getting the last word on matters of everyday vandal containment — save for the word of another moderator. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


I sure do have Steam. I go by LeftyGreenMario. The games I play are mainly Left 4 Dead 2 and Garry's Mod. :) --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

2016 "Number of Edits"[edit]

I made the top 50, just barely. You did over twelve thousand edits; now that's something to ponder. By the way, kook night on shortwave was a bust this evening, as our usual hosts got a very boring substitute to fill in. But, there are many more channels to scan. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey buddy! Thanks for the kudos Th hug.gif
Speaking of "something to ponder"... Notice the shape of that distribution? Keeping in mind that the curve would likely smooth out additionally if it was made to include the top 100, or 200, editors (i.e. had more data points)?
It's shit like this that makes me question free will.
Check out the video if you have the time/energy and give me your thoughts — you won't regret it if you do. Regardless, All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
To be truly Zipf, the edit graph should be "24k, 12k, 8k, 6k, ...", but it is "13k, 10k, 9k, 7k, ...", so you are still 10k edits short. Smiley.gif Trying to apply the law to the Voynich Manuscript leads to the conclusion that it cannot be definitely defined as a human language or gibberish. In addition, the presence of Zipf's law in dolphin whistle types cannot be explained with enough detail by a simplistic die rolling experiment. Personally, I think it is something similar to other statistical phenomena like the law of large numbers and the central limit theorem: either the universe makes sense, or we do. --Cmonk (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Thank you very much for that post about Syria, I definitely needed that bitchslap!!! S.H. DeLong (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


Friendly reminder that renaming an insanely long troll name and hiding the rename log clears up the recent changes log of the long name.—(((CheeseburgerFace))) Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 01:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks buddy. Ask FCP or Bongo to do it (they're on deck as well!). It's 4AM where I live, so I'm too tired to do it right now. Heh. ^^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

An Explanation[edit]

I think Bannon is aligned with Malal because Malal is the embodiment of misanthropic, nihilistic, and ultimately self-destructive ideas (much like Chaos itself). I think Bannon's mix of nativism and economic nationalism fit the bill for that checklist. Of course, given that he seems able to play almost everyone else like a fiddle, he could be Tzeentchian... RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey buddy! Could I just ask who this Malal fellow is? I mean, I know Bannon obviously, but not even Google is too helpful with "Malal" (nor with "Malal + Bannon"). Maybe I'm just a dingus, but I could use some elaboration on Malal specifically for me to get in context here. Thanks in advance. Th hug.gif All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Malal is a minor deity of Chaos, associated with nihilism, contradiction, and malice. His goal is the destruction of material life, an end that would destroy Chaos, including Malal. He is basically the embodiment of Chaos's self-destructive and self-contradictory nature. Here is 1d4chan's article, for what it's worth. Hope this helps! RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I need your help.[edit]

I am trying my best to stay away from media stories regarding Syria and North Korea, but I cannot stay away from them. Could you give me some tips on how to cope with stress? S.H. DeLong (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Liberal Bias[edit]

I AM NOT OLD!!!!!!!!!!! Why block me?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Why block you?
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

An Apology[edit]

Previously I called you idiots and made bad remarks... I was a little frustrated at that time... I hope you do understand... that is not how I view people (regardless of their political views)... peace!Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Apology accepted Th hug.gif We're all human. While good-spirited snark and horseplay is always fine, it's important to be fair and honest as well when push comes to shove. And perhaps most important of all, to forgive others for their shortcomings (e.g., for not taking the high road when perhaps they should, etc). But I ramble. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Kingdamian1, that's really righteous of you.Th hug.gif(feel free to read this in a surfer dude accent)(((CheeseburgerFace))) Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 03:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sixty minutes of shortwave...[edit]

...compressed down into 90 seconds.. Cheers, Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


Any reason that the logo appears green and purple with some pages and grey with most? Just curious. Meh (You) 13:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think those are mainly the "fun" pages, aren't they? (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I've only ever seen it on funspace pages. Christopher (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@BoN @Christopher Indeedy!
@Koi Please see the above replies Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you help me?[edit]

Hey mate, can you help me with my user page? I've tried but I can't seem to get the <\choose> to work right. Feel free to edit the user page until either A) it works or B) you have something more important to do. Thanks! Randí User talk: Randír

For future reference: this was swiftly dealt with by me; the goodest boy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

God's sense of humour ‎[edit]

Can you set up the funspace article page 'pretty please.'

'Category of article which benefits from collective/collaborative snark' - I was just setting the ball rolling (and creating a system which does not require you-the-creator to be included is surely a joke).

Probably some of 'God's errors' could be transferred and/or reworked. (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

God's sense of Humour. Feel free to edit here, but don't put it in a legitimate Fun: page until we have a lot more content. #Can'tComeUpWithACleverSignature 13:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Owe you one, Koi. Th hug.gif All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Could you contact me on Steam?[edit]

I have waited for you to send me a friend invite, could you please do it? S.H. DeLong (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Will do, buddy. Thanks for stayin' at it. (See below reply to LMG for sweet deets on what the holdup is). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey bro[edit]

Can you remedy the "problematic" template at Talk:HAARP? The thing deserves at least Bronze. Thanks. Leuders (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Silver. Cool. Thanks. Leuders (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
My pleasure as always, old timer. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I read somewhere on here recently that you have ADHD. I honestly didn't know that when I wrote this. I feel bad. Apologies. Leuders (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
No, no — it's fine! Th hug.gif I found your comment very endearing, actually (just like I do your "apology", unwarranted as it may be).
I remember that comment, since it left me with a warm, fuzzy feeling upon reading it. It felt like you knew me, in a good way. And let's be honest — I am a Swede who has tended to edit hyperactively, ADHD or no. ^^
The reason I keep bringing up my ADHD is because I'm not ashamed or sensitive about it. To the contrary, my intention is to make it an open "issue", as it were.
And to be frank; here at RW — just like in real life for me — the ADHD hypothesis explains a lot. Haha. All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Pictures and Videos[edit]

How do you put pictures and videos on your user page here? DanielleD (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It's basically the same as for any other page. For details, see:
Bongolian (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the upload file option? DanielleD (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
You don't upload any videos to here; instead you upload the video to YouTube (or just find the video you want on there already) and embed it here using the embed video template. Hope this helps! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Long time no see[edit]

How you doing? I haven't chatted with you in a while and I kind of miss you. :) --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

D'aaw! Miss you too, little buddy Th hug.gif By and large — like Tony says — I'm doing GRRRREAT! It warms the ol' thumpin'-pumpin' chest ticker to hear that people notice when I've been off the site for a bit. I appreciate you all, you know. (Yes — even nobs. Facepalm)
As we all know, I've been taking sort of an unintentional hiatus from RW the past week(s). Considering my "non-hiatus mode" basically translates to: me spending like 8 hours a day in the RC feed smashing F5 like it owes me money, that might be warranted (or maybe good, even).
The reasons behind this little AWOL period of mine thankfully have nothing to do with RW itself — that is; my slump in activity stems fully from the fact that lots of stuff has been, and is currently, going on for me IRL. Most of said things good, though some of them bad (as of late, my nan's vitality has been going down like the Hindenburg, for one...).
And — just for the record — having ADHD doesn't really help my creeping panic incremental efforts to really make sure I actually get up and go see her (in another city and everything) before she actually pines for the fjords, as it were :C.
Also, to be clear — both sides of my family are blessed with a damn decent sense of what us Swedes call "galghumor". So if my choice of levity seems morbid under the circumstances, that's because it's death that's morbid.
Oh! And on a more positive note, I think I've managed to deduce a method of getting you that audiobook we talked about earlier! ;3
Anyways, thanks for lookin' out. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
That's, like, an impressive sense of gallows humour, Reverend. Vive Liberté! 11:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
You should've seen me when I suddenly had to undergo emergency surgery (appendectomy) a couple of years back. Half of it was me comforting my teary-eyed loved ones with actual surgery statistics and the likes (just like I do with people on airplanes; understand the physics of aviation and risk analysis and it's a breeze to fly, I tells ya!), the other half was all, "I want my stuffed corpse stood upright in the hallway as the new coat hanger", "Here's the code signals I'll be sending from the other side", "Auction off my belongings, adopt a kid to replace me, and use the money from the auction to get that boy the 2nd best plastic surgery you can find to make him look like me". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and — to the dismay of many a taxidermist, paranormal researcher and adoption agent — I pulled through in the end. Admittedly a turnout which divides scholarly opinion to this day. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Biggest & most beautiful baby boy[edit]

*newspaper thwack* Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem, officer? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

and again! Don't remove talk page comments, even I know that. Christopher (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

My edit summary speaks for itself. As moderator, my madness is not without method.
Here's what does not constitute "removal" of talk page posts: momentarily (and reversibly) returning a post to sender, in order for it to be resubmitted by the original poster (at their earliest possible convenience) — though, no longer formatted improperly; i.e., in a way which violates site policy, multiple warnings from moderators and common sense, all at once.
Repeatedly filling talk pages with unsigned posts, under the above listed conditions, is to be considered wandalous.
I use the {{unsigned}} template for unsigned posts about 99.9% of the time — and I do so daily. But you have to understand that, while applying the {{unsigned}} template is a courtesy, signing one's own posts is not mere gesture — but site policy. It is expected of you, rightfully so, and before long. Indeed, proper indentation and signed posts are functionally necessary for talk pages to exist meaningfully at all.
Thankfully, instances of broken formatting is easily solvable — in the vast majority of cases — by giving the benefit of the doubt and employing the {{unsigned}} and {{sign}} templates liberally. However — crucially — the meaning of said templates is not that signing your own posts is somehow not a rule. It still is! And as moderator, it's my (sometimes thankless) job to ensure in action that the rules of the site are upheld. As moderator, I have explicitly been given a warrant to do so, by the community at large.
Indeed, the {{unsigned}} and {{sign}} templates are often sufficient to resolve things precisely because they succeed in modulating user posting behaviour to not violate site policy and talkpage integrity in the future.
It will then be apparent that, upon multiple warnings having fallen on deaf ears, asking that individual posts be resubmitted with non-rulebreaking formatting is the least intrusive way to — like the templates tried to do — modulate user post behavior towards formatting functionally. I could just as well vandal bin the repeat offender (until they cease refusing to sign) and be done with it, but I do not believe in the use of excess force (and I always trust in erring on the side of leniency).
Finally, let me be perfectly blunt. I am a contributor, like so many here, who gladly helps the community by gracefully picking up after others. I do not consider myself a martyr, but rather a decent user among many, for continually chosing to do so. I don't mind it; often, I even enjoy it.
But the moment I'm being upbraided for not doing so "enough" — met with impatience, just for not having infinite patience myself — I'm honestly left with a strong desire to simply stand up and walk away (atleast for the day). If the way I have composed myself here, as best I've been able to, has not proven enough to secure me even the benefit of doubt in your eyes, then I can only reconsider how well spent my time here is. And this is not any type of veiled threat, for the record. Quite to the contrary, consider it my open invitation to help ensure that we not take each other for granted — here, or elsewhere. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah "even I know that" wasn't necessary, there was some confusion with whether "sign your comments" meant he had to sign in and make an account which may account for some of the confusion over signing with this particular user. Christopher (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm with Rev. on this one. It isn't - and shouldn't be - our job to constantly add signed and unsigned tags to users who should have already read site policy. Vive Liberté! 17:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
"to users who should have already read site policy" being the key phrase here. Because, actually — I think we should constantly employ the {{sign}} and {{unsigned}} templates (as I happily do daily). But not in reference to the same single user account, indefinitely. Ultimately, there is no substitute to users learning — or even being made — to sign their own posts properly. The wiki format requires it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I also support Rev on this. People need to follow the rules or expect the consequences. Bongolian (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Good post! I think we're all in agreement then, gents. Just remember to shoot the occational spitball at Fuzzy, and peace will have been restored to the valley. Jokes aside though be nice to the boy, he's like the precocious accountant I never had Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Your Opinion[edit]

I would appreciate your opinion on this... thanks— Unsigned, by: Kingdamian1 / talk / contribs

If nothing else, the title seems apt ("miscellaneous bullshit"). The video is short and obscure (and doesn't really stand out as remarkably funny), but its chosen "stupids" are highly missional. A muslim who doesn't understand even basic Newtonian physics, an anti-vaxxer with a depopulation conspiracy streak, etc... All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure but I believe this is Kingdamian1's YouTube channel. Christopher (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Color me impressed, if so! The cranks chosen for the vid appear to be actual cranks (i.e., appear representative of typical fringe views the reality-based community — which I'm not sure Damian is himself a member of — find to be nonsensical) rather than Darwin, Dawkins or others a creationist might (stereo)typically wish to bash. And I'll forgive any roughness of editing if I know it's babby's first video (I only ever knew how to use Movie Maker for Windows XP, so I'm not one to talk). Again, thumbs up if its from Damian. Very sensible crank picks for a Creationist, if so. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
It is his video, he linked to it in this "essay" making it clear the video was made by him. Christopher (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Wow! As such, consider my expectations for a video from Damian wildly surpassed. Thumbs up! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes... It's my channel... So you liked it???--Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure! And, importantly, your message that we need to find agreement too. RationalWiki is not all bad, even in your eyes. And you made a video I liked. Nicely done. Maybe we can understand each other even better in the future, after all. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This is gonna be a series... so I'd appreciate your subscription and opinions... check out part 2... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


Cookie half.jpg For demonstrating exemplary goatery in the line of duty, cosmikdebris
has awarded you a used pre-owned! and slightly stale cookie.
Cockroaches ate half of it.
Thanks, old timer. I never did think I would earn such a prize. For your health! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Velkopopovický Kozel.jpg For demonstrating exemplary goatery in the line of duty, Spud
has awarded you some beer. Look it has a goat on the label!
If anyone deserves this, it's definitely you. Skål! Spud (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for making me feel so appreciated! I owe you one right back. All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Goat Barnstar.png For demonstrating exemplary goatery in the line of duty, Christopher has awarded you a Goat Star. May you enjoy good health, and be long lived and prosperous in the long tradition of goatery.
As an apology for me being a bit of a dick about the guy who wouldn't sign his comments, please accept this goat. Christopher (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Apology accepted, good buddy Th hug.gif I was feeling kinda down in the dumps that day as well, but even so, I think I managed to keep things civil. But just in case it seemed I didn't, I'm sorry too. Meaning; I didn't mean to single you out for that rant (though the rant was coming). FCP actually deserved about 80% of it (the scamp). Oh well. Thanks for the barnstar! The goat was my favorite. All the best m'boy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Why does a reverend think he knows anything about science?[edit]

Can a religious type, someone who believes in the grand sky fairy (look within these pages at the send-up Flying Spaghetti Monster) claim to be rational? Faith has no place in science.

Why don't you look at child abuse in the catholic church or its position on contraceptives. Might you also look at how Anglicans racially discriminated black people from attending its churches in the UK in the 1950s-70s? (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you have dear percy wrong. I'm not entirely certain, but I'm pretty sure his user name is a reference to an obscure Swedish... thing? Definitely not his actual profession. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@ I'm sorry, but you would obviously have to ask someone with a different (read: more fitting) username about that. Preferably one along the lines of "Person who divulges truth" — seeing as how you appear to put quite a bit of stock in which assumptions you consider warranted, based on a random person's username alone. This, despite the fact that on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dogWikipedia. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
**You are** a dog!— Unsigned, by: / talk
No, I'm a dog, see how I sign my username! a dog (woof!) 16:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
'tis my mortal enemy, a dog! a cat (nyan!) 16:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
There's always Tom and Jerry rules, a mouse (squeak!) 18:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps 'Church of Science' (and what about Wikipedia category [2] - there do not appear to be equivalent categories for other faiths). (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Beyond Science Page[edit]

Hello. The recent activity entry for the above page's deletion caught my eye, as I'd wondered just yesterday if RW had a view on this YT channel. My search returned no results though. My apologies if I inadvertently created a not-even-stub page.Daev (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It was The Super Skeptic who created the page, I presume you're the same person? Christopher (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Nope, hadn't logged in for a while until a password reset just before my earlier post just above. Just a coincidence I guess. Daev (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why the header changed since my earlier post. Daev (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
It is mystery Th unsure.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

What's the page you get...[edit]

When you try and rename a user to the same name they already have (e.g. renaming me to Christopher)? I vaguely remember seeing the MediaWiki page for it a while back and it having a typo or something, I can't check myself because I'm not a tech. Christopher (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Stand back! I'm going to attempt science! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Allright. It displays a warning template (which may or may not be found in our list of templates). It reads:

You cannot rename a user to the same name they are using now. Face.gif

It appears based on Template:Messagebox, since it appears to be using the frame of either mb-warning-red or mb-error.
But isn't the real question; how come you haven't been made a tech yet? Th hug.gif All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to use any templates, this is the relevant MediaWiki page (I was able to find it after you told me what it displays). Christopher (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Beyond using an awful image it doesn't appear to contain any errors, not sure what I was thinking of. Christopher (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Now we know why I wasn't already tech, because I'd immediately test whether you can remove it from yourself. You can. Christopher (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
SisyphusWikipedia? Never heard of him! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Grabbing text from a deleted page[edit]

I see the Jesus Christ Superstar page has been deleted, is there a way you could add that text to my sandbox so I could cut out superfluous parts of the criticisms section and reword the intro on it a bit more? The description on the to do list was copied from the TOW intro but I made somewhat of an effort to change it, I'd also like your opinion on the next sandbox revision to see if it's good to go. Thanks. X-Factor (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Here you go:
Christopher (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

For writing that message on my talkpage. Both of my difficult finals ended today, so I am practically in vacation already. Anyways, what did I miss? Aside from KF1 being demoted, I don't know much of what's happening. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Kingdamian1 became a sysop, I'm now a tech, X-Factor (who joined a few days before you blocked yourself) has been going around copy pasting content from Wikipedia and we still haven't got rid of all of it. I can't think of anything else off the top of my head. Christopher (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Got it. I'll get to work reviewing the stuff X-Factor wrote. From what I can tell, it's not TOO bad. It's actually pretty good. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The problem being X factor doesn't write it, he just copy pastes from the Wikipedia article and removes redlinks and broken templates. Christopher (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Which page(s), exactly, did he C/P Wikipedia content onto? RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
We don't know, probably most of their edits. Christopher (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I saw some other edits from him that weren't taken from TOW. They were sourced to newspapers. However... Googling segments of the accompanying text (which X-factor had supposedly written himself), it turns out he'd not just used the newspaper refs for sourcing, but his text submission consisted of stolen paragraphs from the very news articles he cited as refs. It also seems he took my instructions as meaning that he could still copy as long as he obfuscated things a bit, which is not what I meant. The risk is that much is ripped; period. Especially sad considering all the content he's dealt with so far has appeared missional. The problem is, it's just not written by him. Nobody would be happier than me if he'd just "get the message" and start writing his own text like the rest of us. Then he'd be considered a valued member of the community before long. But as things stand currently, he's basically a repeat copypaster. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Check this out please[edit]

New one I made... Your opinion much appreciated--Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


on your masterful display of fence sitting. apparently suggesting someone might be a little touched, something we do here multiple times a day about pretty much everyone, is equivocal to homophobic and rape themed abuse. who knew? clearly i was wrong to be even slightly aggrieved. well done sir. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

oh, i did say he was banal. i am a monster. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Neither of you are making yourselves any friends by going on about this, just stop it. Christopher (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
i refer you to my above statement to reverend. Homophobic and rape themed is a ok on rationalwiki. i am not ok with this. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
It isn't, which is why Gewgtweg was banned too. If he says anything like that again he'll be banned for longer. Christopher (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
bullshit. i get banned for the same length of time for reacting to someone telling me i should be raped. how the fuck do you think i am going to react that? its not the banning, its the equivocation (if thats the right word.) nothing i did or said was even remotely comparable. but hey, drama. lets sweep that away so we dont have to deal with it. heaven forbid a moderator should actually moderate. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree what he said was a lot worse, you're the one still going on about it though. Retain the moral high ground and let him be the person who keeps going on about it. Christopher (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
retain the moral the high ground? when i have been dealt with in exactly the same fashion? i am subjected to abuse that no one should be subjected to and you tell me to suck it up? you tell me i'm 'not making any friends by going on about this'? i dont want to get into a he said/she said arugument, but i did not react even faintly egregiously until after repeated escalation. i can deal with rape threats and homophobic abuse. ive dealt with both too many times more than i'd i like. what riles is i am treated in exactly the same manner as the person hurling such shit. that disgusts me. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Give Percy the benefit of the doubt, he may have only seen the later parts of the thread (where if you didn't know the context you'd be forgiven for thinking both of you were in the wrong). Christopher (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
hes a moderator. he should actually look into to what he is moderating. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
It was only an hour long ban. Christopher (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
please re read what i have written. the ban or its lenghth are not the issue. it is the equivocation (again, i hope i am using that word correctly). AMassiveGay (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I agree what Gewgtweg did was worse, what do you want Percy to do though? He wasn't banning to punish anyone but to try and get you two to stop, different length blocks would just cause more complaining from Gewgtweg. Christopher (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Really? you still think this is about blocks? all i would have liked is some small acknowledge that this abuse was unacceptable. sadly that small thing is likely to be meaningless as i am having to browbeat it out of a third party who wants me to just drop it. as such i will drop it. just one thing though. at the risk of sounding like a rabid MRA, do you think i would have gotten the same reaction if i was female or this occured on the rape culture? i think we both know we would be having a very different conversation. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
It was unacceptable and certainly not comparable to saying "are you off your meds?" to someone, I hope Percy would agree. I do still think you need to give Percy the benefit of the doubt. Christopher (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason I changed it...[edit]

Is because I was explaining the concept to my girlfriend and showed the RW page. She promptly asked "huh, what does that mean?" The expanded math really doesn't add anything and only detracts. You may find it funny, and I'm all for jokes, but jokes should stop when they're detracting from clarity. Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey buddy! Glad to see you on-site Th hug.gif Yeah, Lord knows both of our revisions have their pitfalls. I'm actually thinking if the whole math analogy should be moved in the article (i.e., make more sense after the concept's been explained closer in text). Maybe a visual aid other than an equation could help here. But either way, I actually find the full "glockenspiel"-type equation to be rather clear. Now, I don't mean to impugn the abilities of either you or your girlfriend, but I've also shown/explained said equation to numerous people — most of them with no foreknowledge of how RW works — and there's been little confusion in their minds (though, many laughs). As such, I think the whole argument-by-person-I-explained-to-either-getting-or-not-getting-it should likely be disarded for the purposes of this discussion. Note also that a major reason for reverting you is that your alternate take on it seems patently worse to me than what's already on there. As such, it's not that I consider the longstanding version to be imperfectable (far from it — though, I much appreciate the glockenspiel-thing). The best thing to do now is let the pre-revision version stand and await other editors weighing in (e.g. Christopher, Bongolian, FuzzyCatPotato, etc). All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
None of the article is *about* math. The math is just used an example, and examples should be straightforward and clear. This is not clear; granted, one datapoint (my gf) is not a whole lot, but she's not stupid and it's not hard to see how a comparative complex equation can confuse. Either way, clarity trump jokes. Every time.
Also, last time I checked moderators are not "more right" in matters of editorial disagreement. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Moderators are always right to stop edit wars. Furthermore, this isn't a live chat. Things are allowed to take time. We're currently at 1-1. Await the opinion of other editors. Until that moment, the version that stood prior to the start of this, stands — period. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Clarity > joke. Simple. Mod powers need not be invoked. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Of course, this discussion is fruitless. In the past you've always insist on injecting jokes at the expense of clarity and imposing on other editor's work. Guess there is fundamental difference in our viewpoints: I come here to write something useful. You come here to make jokes. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Who, exactly, is 'imposing their view' here? And since you not only failed to offer me kind greeting (as I did you), but outright ad hominem me — I'll have you know that while I never claimed perfection, I actually spend quite a lot of time here, and I know I'm appreciated for doing so. This has been made clear to me repeatedly by an array of people less prone to tantrums than yourself. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how the current version is harder to understand, it appears to have been first added here. Christopher (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that 1) an editor tries to improve the clarity of page 2) this quickly gets reverted with "the faux equation is hilarious". These are simply not equivalent arguments. If they would be, then any random person could forever argue over minor bloody details "because someone finds it funny".
Oh wait, we had that. Time and time and time again. :-/
There is a certain art to collaborative editing, and part of that is not immediately dismissing people's edits with weak arguments such as "but it's hilarious". Pick your battles over important things, and this is most definitely not one of them. This version is less clear. This is not a contentious statement by a long shot, and you have done very little to refute that. you and I may be IT geeks who understand math and stuff, but most folk simply aren't. Curse of knowledge and all that. Do you know how many people struggle with simple formulas? A lot of them do. Not everyone is smart and bright like you and me.
Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I still can't see how it is but if it is even slightly less clear we should use Carpetsmoker's version. Clarity trumps comedy. Christopher (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
What is it that you think is less clear about it? Christopher (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
It's a longer equation with more mathematical symbols and notation that people may not be familiar with. In addition it can't be easily pronounced (the other version can, and I've often used it as such in conversation). Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry I came off somewhat strong here, and for that I humbly offer my sincere apologies. I know ye're trying to make this a better place, just like I am. But I also hope you can understand it's annoying to have something dismissed with "but it's hilarious!" Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I can sort of see how the other version is clearer, I think we should use Carpet's revision. Christopher (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Just stopping by to say hello[edit]

-💠💿☝️ (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, son. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Do you think Trump will get impeached soon?-💠💿☝️ (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

User page bible verse[edit]

I think you might have gotten confused what it means, just wanted to point this out and don't mean to cause any problems. visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children: meaning chiefly, if not solely, the iniquity of idolatry; which being such an insult on his honour, "crimen laesae majestatis", is treated by him as high treason is among men; not only he punishes the authors and perpetrators of it in their own persons, which is meant by "visiting", but upon their children also, which are parts of themselves; and whatsoever is inflicted on them is the same as on themselves, and is an addition to, and a sensible aggravation of their punishment; and especially these are visited in such a manner, when they tread in their father's steps, and fill up the measure of their iniquity. to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me: as all idolaters must be thought to do, whatsoever love and affection they may pretend to God, by worshipping idols before him, besides him, along with him, or him in them: "the third and fourth generation" are mentioned, because sometimes parents lived to see these during those times, and so with their eyes beheld the punishment inflicted upon their posterity for their sins, which must be distressing to them; or, however, these being but small removes from them, might impress their minds and affect them, to think what their sins would bring upon their descendants, who would quickly come after them, and share in the sad effects of their iniquities, and so be a means to deter them from them.--Rimuru Tempest (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

In case you've missed it[edit]

There's been a buncha RMF stuff. Sorry, forgot to spam your userpage as well -- perhaps you missed it. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 10:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I had indeed. Thanks for the talkpage reminder, as always. This, considering (on the one hand) that I'm basically guaranteed to miss stuff that's not brought to my attention on here, and (on the other) that I've managed flawless attendance when reminded. Stupid ADHD, I know — but that's precisely why I'm so grateful for your pro-active nudging Th hug.gif All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Available for interim meeting this weekend?[edit]

αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Ten-four, good buddy! Saturday, right? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Yep. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Pssst! Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 17:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
My bad, chief! Facepalm Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


join me here (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

As a mod who's been involved in the X factor stuff[edit]

Do you think he should be blocked for longer than 3.6 days? He seems completely incapable of understanding the basic instruction "don't plagiarize". I'm cautious about blocking him for longer as I'm relatively new and not in a position of power. Christopher (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There's no precedent to this situation under my watch as moderator — DG likely has specific experience with something like this — but my "hip shot" would go something like; get me one recent example of outright plagiarization, and a permaban is in order. Note also that a supposed permaban is motivated not by the user's failure to follow instruction (i.e. a disciplinary problem; such are to be handled in the coop), but from the simple fact that the publication of copyrighted text under pretense of original authorship is a crime which threatens the entire site. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


Something I heard about recently. Apparently, a Dano-Norwegian author named Aksel Sandemose formulated eleven rules relating to societal norms in Scandinavia. As far as I can tell, they can basically be summarized as "You are not as important as us." Given that you're actually Swedish, could you explain this a bit more to me? RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the guyWikipedia (who lived 1899-1965) formulated what's called (in English) the "Law of JanteWikipedia". In Swedish, it's called "Jantelagen" (which translates to the exact same wording as it does in English).
While the expression "Jantelagen" has come to have a certain significance in Scandinavian culture, it's actually less unique than one might think — the English equivalent expression is the tall poppy syndromeWikipedia.
Now, as a Swede (who is very familiar with the expression as used in everyday language), I would argue that a clear definition of what the expression means is best given hereWikipedia.
And just in case it wasn't perfectly obvious already — nobody sees "Jantelagen" as anything but a wholly negative expression. Meaning; "Jantelagen" has nobody 'defending' it. While the "law" itself is mere literary invention, the concept underpinning it denotes an attitude (percieved or imagined) that is, at any rate, universally disliked (and the expression itself is exclusively said in protest or criticism).
The real applicative meaning of the expression ("Jantelagen") is to signify that you feel as if you're being held back (or 'looked at crooked') by haters who just can't stand to see you succeed (and whom believe you deserve to fail, a priori).
As such, I hope you didn't get the impression from somewhere that "Janelagen" meant (e.g.) "the sickening attitude created in the minds of those living under the Nordic pinko communist model" or anything like that. Hehe. In fact, a modern equivalent of the expression would quite literally be "haters gonna hate". No kidding. I hope this was of any use. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Alright. Thank you very much for explaining it to me! If you ever need our wacky California customs explained to you, then just let me know. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Anytime, buddy. And thanks for the offer! For one — any idea why surfers say "Gnarlyyy!"? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, I should add that this expressionWikipedia (as well as the "tall poppy syndrome") convey the basic meaning of "Jantelagen" quite synonymously. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Surfers are...strange. Even other Californians think so. Attempting to delve into why they say stuff like that is like attempting to figure out Cthulhu's favorite breakfast cereal; nigh impossible, and certainly going to drive you insane.
As far as I can tell, it originates from the weird mix of religious cults and subcultures that had their own lexicon, and then it just spread. Yeah, California's fucking weird. Incidentally, that last sentence should be the new page quote on California. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Gnarly comes from the idea of something being "gnarled", tangled, knotted up, i.e. not smooth. And BTW, Kookmobile has at least 3 different meanings in surf lingo. Leuders (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC) (ex Californian)


Andrew Bolt page - I thought I did contribute to the 'talk' page Reverend Black Percy? Why did you delete it?— Unsigned, by: Enduringecho / talk / contribs

Why, because — apparently, I need to visit a neurologist. And my optician. In that order. Facepalm My bad! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: Economyths[edit]

References forthcoming, it's a good day for empiricism. Th hug.gif

I'm afraid not, but the blurb and the outrage from neoclassical economists who also despise my copy of Debunking Economics by Steve Keen (e.g. Chris Auld) are promising. I'll have to keep an eye out for copies. MAI742 (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Debunking Economics was the other book I planned on getting, aside from Economyths.
Now, having read criticisms of said books with an open mind, I understand that neither of them are 'perfect books' (as if such a thing could even exist), but that they — if nothing else — seem overwhelmingly "more right than wrong", as it were.
I'm a philosopher first, which makes the Pythagorean connection to neoclassical economics very interesting to me (as Pythagoras was, in many ways, a profoundly baked dude).
Make sure you add the updated version of Economyths to your reading list (the one that lists "Eleven myths" on the cover); I'll do the same with Debunking Economics. All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


Unfortunately, I have not received that message from you Percy. Please email me at my Gmail address "" or at my steam address "Henri IV of France". S.H. DeLong (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC) '

Note to self: this was dealt with. I'd love to add "swiftly", but honestly, that'd be pushing it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


Rev, would it be expensive as a foreigner to stay in Sweden for a while? Specifically, Malmo? I'm wondering about food and housing mostly. Just ballpark it based on what's around you since I'm 99.98276% sure you don't live there and that you're liberal. Thanks! Koidevelopment (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, that all depends! Would your plan involve studying, working, or just crashing on my sofa? Do you have any savings — not just for the trip, but for the stay? I did a quick Google and these links appeared relevant. Now, as far as me 'shooting from the hip' goes...
As a spoiled and pampered Swedish citizen, my general impression is certainly that most things here are quite affordable — not just despite the high taxes, but in the long run, thanks to them. I mean, while it is certainly hard to become a millionaire in Sweden, it's even harder to become truly destitute in Sweden. As a citizen, healthcare is free, you get paid to study, you essentially have a right to a real roof over your head (and not just that), et cetera...
And while I'm likely more sheltered than I'd even imagine, what's true societally is that there really aren't any 'ghettos' in existence in Sweden in anything like the sense in which ghettos demonstrably exist in the US. We do have our own brand of wannabe US-inspired gangsta rap, though. Just, since we harbor plenty morbid fascination adoration for y'all crazy-exotic Americans. Like seriously, the US basically seems to us Swedes what Vegas (or even Disneyland) seems to the average everyday American — a whimsical madhouse wonderland, teeming with bright lights and high stakes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
(Deranged Ringmaster Voice)Step right up, one and all! Ladies and gentlemen from the Northern lands, we have a truly horrific, frightening,'Mmmonstrous' thing for you! The Circus of America presents the small-handed, orange-skinned, petty spiteful p***y grabber, our President! RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
QwQ would you be so kind as to let me couch surf your home? Just kidding I won't impose. No, not to move to the land of the Swedes. See, I'm planning to move to Amsterdam as a student a couple years from now, and I love to longboard, so I'm looking for good places to longboard and Malmo popped up on my radar as a good place in Europe to go. So, it'd be like a week or two thing. Thanks for the links! Also, I just have to say, all my international friends thought the exact same thing about America being like Vegas. Truth be told, the real-life variety of America isn't anything special.
Edit: wtf the average for regular doctor visits is 1100 sed ($113)?! Vive Liberté! 21:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
As an American, i am truly frightened to see how ass-backwards we are compared to your country. Whenever Universal care is brought up, there's the old drivel that you could spend years waiting for an operation on a life-threatening condition.--Spoony (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)