User talk:Revolverman

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

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Nutty Roux (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to the blaringly pimpalicious peach! Nutty Roux

Sysop[edit]

Apparently you're not. Now you are. Peter horas non numero nisi serenas 02:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Rulez[edit]

Don't bin IPs. Block them. ТyAhoy! 00:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Never forget (Conspiracy Theories)[edit]

Conspiracy theories are so well hidden and deep the average person knows NOTHING about them, but so incompetent that those who know the truth easily found it and are avoiding being silenced while they share it. --il'Dictator Mikal 02:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Even if it goes no-where, I do get an odd pleasure of debating conspiracy theorists and walling off their escape hatches and seeing what they twist and spin. --Revolverman (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Explanation[edit]

I wanted to see if this would be restored too, or just ignored. It wasn't. Very interesting. --Revolverman (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Navigation templates[edit]

OK, where should I start...

  • There should be at most one navigation template per article. More are pointless and distracting and displace content, especially images.
  • Just because an article is in a certain category doesn't mean it should have the navigation template for that category, especially if it already has one.
  • There are better thing you can do in mainspace rather than robotically adding navigation templates.
  • Don't complain that someone is reverting your mass changes without giving justification if you haven't given justification for making the mass change in the first place.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok then, what is the justification for some pages under the template having it and another in the same template NOT having it? Or some doubled up, but some can't be? --Revolverman (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I think you may be confusing (navigation) templates and categories. As I tried to explain - navigation templates take page space and user attention. They are intended to point the user to other pages on the same topic. If the topic/category is secondary to the article at hand, adding a template is pointless and distracting. If the page contains multiple images in the right field, adding a template will force them to the bottom, and moving the images to the left leads to formatting problem with the text, especially on smaller screens. There are also cases when articles are not well categorized - then you need to fix the categories instead of automatically adding a template.
If you notice a page with "doubled up" templates, it was probably some other Aspie getting over-enthusiastic. Feel free to leave only the one you decide is the most relevant. In all cases, try using some common sense.
tl;dr - navigation templates are not page decoration, but a tool. Use them with discernment.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Brx[edit]

Please see the friendly message of advice left on Brx's page. It shouldn't be too hard for him to follow. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 04:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Elvis is King[edit]

I'm not doing anything apart from trying to get rid of sock accounts. Elvis is King, AKA James Wilson, is completely obsessed with Ameriwiki and Taylor Swift. He is not playing with a full deck. --SamCoulter (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Makes me wish that Rumor that Nx kept the checkuser program going was true. --Revolverman (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we really need CheckUser to work out who's behind this. Just ask Colonel Sanders about this stroker. He's been doing this at AW for months. --SamCoulter (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
For the IP. Right now, I don't know anyway from anyone spamming new accounts like this. Though thinking about it, he's likely employing proxies. --Revolverman (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
He must be. I blocked a couple of his socks and checked "Prevent logged in users from editing from this IP." No effect. --SamCoulter (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure it's him? All he did was the "X Loves Taylor Swift" accounts. I don't recall any sexually vulgar references from him. Perhaps it's MC or some other troll pretendind to be Jimmy? --Colonel Sanders (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
We really don't know, just because he saids its him, doesn't mean a thing on the Internet. --Revolverman (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I think Jimmy has had the benefit of enough doubts already. His previous behaviour makes it quite obvious that he's insane. --SamCoulter (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
So how many more times are you going to mention "James is insane!"?Mikal Harass Follow 03:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Sanity is overrated. Peter Rapidly running out of marmite 03:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
(EC×3) Most likely Tor. The only thing half productive that can be done is clean the names from RC, but that will just encourage him. We need to find a tech to add "samcoulter" to the appropriate edit filter. Peter Rapidly running out of marmite 03:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, screw him. I'm going to bed, so if I'm the target of all this shite he'll hopefully stop. --SamCoulter (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Isn't there an option to block anyone trying to edit or create accounts from a Tor on MediaWiki? --Revolverman (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
As I understand it that would increase the amount of time edits took to get through immensely, at least for innocent BoNs/account makers. Plus there was a vote against it a few years ago I think. Peter Rapidly running out of marmite 03:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
IT was mentioned back in april too, and not really any good support,--Mikal Harass Follow 03:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Any way to just zap the account when it pops up so it doesn't clutter anything? --Revolverman (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
You can 'hide' it, but it's still there (just can't be easily read). Peter Rapidly running out of marmite 03:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I have to say, thats not good enough. This shit makes RW REALLY REALLY bad. Not great for attracting new editors or even donaters. --Revolverman (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh fuck, now hes hitting RWW. --Revolverman (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Shall we clean up the mess then? The result would be lots of things like the "(username removed)" at 3:35, though you only have to hide that part. Peter Rapidly running out of marmite 04:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
How can I help? --Revolverman (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Go to the user creation log and hit "show/hide" beside the entry. Then check the "Hide editor's username/IP address" button and press "apply." This adds another entry into RC, so you'll be needing to get Ninja powers off ty to become a bot and hide your hiding, so to speak. Peter Rapidly running out of marmite 04:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Great time for me to check RW/W for the first time in days. ТyNot updated with a witty slogan this week 04:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Having fun debating one of CP's finest admins? --Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool stor... oh, whoops. In fact, I am. --Revolverman (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
He's nuttier than Schlafly! --Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I did see some Andy-esk talking points. I'm sad he never said "Deny this, and lose all credibility" Thats my fav. --Revolverman (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
He did use "You're clueless" [1] --Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
So he did! I didn't even see that. --Revolverman (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I bet he'll use the "Deny this..." in time. Also, what's his deal about me and Swift? I don't remember Schlafly hating on her... Damn mini-Schlafly--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm... he's more of a Mini-Rob with those left turns into nothing statements of his. --Revolverman (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Needs more McCarthyism for that.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like plenty to me. --Revolverman (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Is he still going? --Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Awww ya, he seems to be getting very confused though. --Revolverman (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you deny, sir, that the imbecile you're talking to loves Taylor???--Elvis is King (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Cool Story, Bro. --Revolverman (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Romney's goldbuggery[edit]

Is Mitt Romney economically illiterate? Yes. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Makes me sad I use to buy that shit, hook, line, and sinker. Fiat money is going to fail, and all that Austrian school horseshit. I was a very dumb teenager. Wish drugs were my youthful indiscretion. --Revolverman (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
We all did stupid things as teenagers. ТyBored 17:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Very stupid in my case, but it did lead to a joke that since gold is basically worthless as Fiat when boiled down to its use, a friend of mine said whats needed is a rice and grain backed currency. --Revolverman (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I recall a moron who felt we should use tin. ТyBored 17:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
If we could turn back the clock before the 1880s, we could have a nice Aluminum backed currency!--Revolverman (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Recovering Paulbot or did you just really like gold (unfortunate schmelting accidents and all that)? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
MY WINKIE IS NOT A KEY!, but ya recovering Paulbot. I'm not even American and I bought into him. I think I really stopped buying into it all when I found his verious racist/sexist/anti-science stances and having a SUPER paulbot friend tell me it was all miss information spread by his enemies. It was there I realized how deep into conspiracy land I was going. Never gave up my pro-gun beliefs though. Economically, I'm a workist. Whatever works, use it. --Revolverman (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, smearing the good name of Dr. Paul, eh? The end the Fed/goldbuggery stuff is pretty amusing in how much of a crank magnet it is, attracting support from the Austrian schoolers, Randroids, conspiracy nuts of various stripes (especially those worried about the Jooish bankstahs), neo-Nazis, etc. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if the idea itself that draws them, Paul himself buys it all, or he's just willing to hop into bed with any group to add strength to his career. --Revolverman (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think Paul buys a lot of the nuttier stuff, but he knows which side his bread is buttered on. For example, I actually agree with the Paulbots that he probably didn't write the racist newsletters -- insiders seem to agree that the publication was hijacked for the purposes of the Rockwell-Rothbard campaign. However, Paul hasn't actually held anyone accountable for this because Rockwell and his acolytes are Paul's primary propagandists (and Rothbard is dead anyway). See also this post, which explains the affinity of neo-Confederates for goldbuggery. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh Lew Rockwell. Fuck that fart sniffing shithead. Even when I was 100% drinking the Austrian Kool-aid I still couldn't stand reading anything he wrote as he was so far up his own ass, it could be called deep core mining. Even my super Paul-bot friend I talked about before joined me in jumping off any support for Lewy-boy after the face melting idiocy that was his defense of BP oil, and how mean the people in the gulf were for being pissed they split billions of barrels of crude everywhere. Then when that was clearly going nowhere, flipping to "Oil is 100% natural, so it can't cause any environmental damage!". Why he even defended BP I have no clue, because he (rightly) throws United Fruit under the bus for its action in Latin America, while BP, when it was still the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, had the fucking Shah of Iran installed in a coup. Fucking moron he is, and thats not even getting into his masturbatory fantasies about Somalia. Er... I kinda ranted there. --Revolverman (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ah, great moments in Rockwell-ian insanity. United Fruit gets thrown under the bus because it runs counter to his isolationism. The BP spill didn't, so "free" enterprise must be defended! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's even greater when other free enterprise people pointed out BP basically killed all fishing, and tourism industries in the gulf with the blowout, and all Lewy-boy could counter with was "Well, they don't make as much money as BP, so they weren't REALLY hurt by the spill." and "How about how bad BP is hurting with the loss of the oil well. Why don't you think about them?" or completely turn into non sequitur with "HOW EVIL is it that the Government is making BP pay for cleaning up the damage and paying out for the economic losses? COMMU-NAZIISM!" --Revolverman (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Rockwell-ian insanity...[edit]

Ron Paul 4 Nobel! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, that site is unaware that Dr. Paul isn't apposed to war, he just feels that the best group to do it is uncontrollable mercenaries. Nothing like having the US Military replaced with Blackwater! --Revolverman (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, sorry Academi. Way to make your little private army sound like a liberal arts school Princy boy. --Revolverman (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,000[edit]

Do you play? If so, which army? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried, but I just didn't have the head for it. I liked the Imperial Guard. --Revolverman (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. I do play Imperial Guard. Do you play other wargames? I've always wanted to get into Warmachine, by Privateer Press. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Nope, I found I'm just no tabletop general. --Revolverman (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Understandable. I envy you, I've spent way too much money on this hobby. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
There are some pictures of my guardsmen and ADK's 'nids lying around somewhere. ТyJFBAA 03:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I used to play with my brother. I had a Space Marine army, and he had an Eldar army. He used to annoy the crap out of me by camping with most of his troops while his falcon tank's targeting computer allowed him to pick off my troops and retreat to safety over and again. It was about the time I procured a heavy weapons squad with a laser cannon that suspiciously enough, he lost interest in the game.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Another reason I stopped playing 40K was that the fluff for it was just too fucking insane and Grim-dark for my liking, also Matt Ward (Wonder if anyone will react to that name here.) --Revolverman (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

KILL the Spiritual Liege. ТyJFBAA 04:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
UltraSmurfs! (Christ, how do I know so much about the 40K Fandom?) --Revolverman (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Space Marine-Necrons Team-up. Grey Knights making the ultra smurfs look like conscript squads. There are no words, only hate. ТyJFBAA 04:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
There is always Creed... --Revolverman (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Creed.png ТyJFBAA 04:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that picture is actually properly uploaded to the site, and not a hotlink. --Revolverman (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Getting a life[edit]

If you're worried about not having a life why not set yourself some tasks offline? i spend a lot of time in front of a computer but later this morning I'm going to my local swimming pool which I enjoy. You may not like swimming,

  1. Find one or more things that you like doing offline and make sure that you do things you like offline regularly.
  2. Plan in advance when you will do those things and see to it that you do them.
  3. Do you think spending too much time in front of a computer is bad for you? Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

For future reference[edit]

It's "run the gamut," not "run the gamete." Running a gamete is slightly impossible  :-) Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that I look at it, I see that. I'm an idiot. *slaps head*. Thanks for helping iron out my re-write of the Deadliest Warrior page though!--Revolverman (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Wait[edit]

Shortwave? As in Radio?--Mikal Harass Follow 06:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup. One of my hobbies is scanning Shortwave bands for anything interesting. Hard to do in the City, I've found. --Revolverman (talk) 07:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
HAve you heard Kjes? I'm looking for somebody that isnt random shortwave forum posters. --Mikal Harass Follow 07:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
No I haven't, Station or Website? If station, whats the band? --Revolverman (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
According to this website its one of these. Here for what we have on it. --Mikal Harass Follow 07:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh! KJES! I've never picked that up, but I DID once find some sort of hyper-libertarian Shortwave show on the tail end of it that was talking about gold and chem-trails once. --Revolverman (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I miss so much by not having a shortwave. My friend in Quebec is trying to catch Kjes sometime since last week. --Mikal Harass Follow 07:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
In a Valley in a city doesn't help. Last time I was out camping, my radio was busted, so I couldn't pick up anything but the local CBC. I got Cuba a few times, Australia, and China. Oh, and this freaky as hell station once. It just white noise with some random person (it always sounded like a different person) saying some weird shit like "God and the Devil always dance for two." --Revolverman (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I love this country sometimes. --Mikal Harass Follow 07:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it had to be the SW equivalent of trolling or something, or a parody on those fucked up religious stations on SW now, because he was downing God as much as they were talking about how bad the devil was. Is there some weird sect that believes in, but rejects both God and the Devil? --Revolverman (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Given theres a sect that believes 666 is actually a holy number of god and thus tattooed it on themselves, i wouldnt be surprised if there was. --Mikal Harass Follow 07:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Well,learn something new every day then. I wonder if they are still even broadcasting anymore now. Makes me wish I was around during the 80s, and the peak of numbers stations. --Revolverman (talk) 07:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
just wait for the new cold war --Mikal Harass Follow 08:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I doubt that would spark them again, with the ease of the Internet over ultra-high powered SW transmitters that can be picked up by civvies and counter-intel. --Revolverman (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

time machine? If Titor wasnt a lying bastard, we have just 20 more years to go.--Mikal Harass Follow 08:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
This guy? Wish I could find that picture someone claimed was from the civil war that showed him dressed up as a Union solider. --Revolverman (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Found it! --Revolverman (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Far to long since i really looked him up to remember. --Mikal Harass Follow 08:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I personalty like the idea that the world's first time travler had a sweet ass mullet. --Revolverman (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I have been arguing with EvDebs all throughout three days. I think he is personally invested in A+ to not see things rationally when points are against him.

  • Update* Sorry I won't again, but I think the user has serious issues with regards to our discussion and on top of that he keeps vandalising my post.
No problem, and I wouldn't know, I don't even remotely follow Atheism at large, let alone Atheism+ --Revolverman (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

On the Hoxha article[edit]

See its talk page. — Unsigned, by: Ismail / talk / contribs

good lord[edit]

Using that test thing, i get a download rate of 5-20ish Mb/s, and upload of 2-6 mb. This is the modern age, stop having such terrible internet. --Mikal Harass Follow 06:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

175 kb/s if I'm lucky. The joy of the Canadian Telecommunications monopoly shared between Bell, Telus, and Rogers. --Revolverman (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Cox provides pretty decent internet service, though it has a habit of going down for a second or so every so often. Time was it was pretty much near monopolizing this town for internet, cable and landlines.--Mikal Harass Follow 07:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Sadly they don't do business in Canada, so I'm still stuck with Telus. Not that I'd expect anyone to provide faster net, since this fucking hick city's net infrastructure likely still runs on moisten wool and cans. --Revolverman (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
My canadian friends, atleast the ones who arent hiding in Quebec, say much of the same (my Quebecian friends are to busy being communist anarchists)--Mikal Harass Follow 07:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Yup, if I recall, Canada is dead last in net infrastructure for the first world. Thanks CRTC. Keep pushing that Canadian content no one fucking wants. --Revolverman (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
but... i like some canadian content D: . --Mikal Harass Follow 07:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I misspoke. More like CRTC supports Canadian CORPORATE content no one fucking wants. --Revolverman (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
silly british Tradition media. If the other colonies had just revolted with us, you wouldnt have to deal with such a silly problem!--Mikal Harass Follow 07:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop[edit]

I really have nothing against you and I admire your sentiment but I can't let you keep blocking Dirk Steele for 3 months. Please reconsider. Uke Blue 21:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Why? What has Dirk done that suggests that he will ever be anything but some nutzo crank who WILL derail any topic anywhere to blab about his pet topics and throw really poor, sexually aggressive insults when someone calls him out on it? Why do we feel like this site (that already has a bad reputation, at least community wise) need someone like that around? --Revolverman (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there anyway that you can restrict him to his talk page or a forum? Man of Perspective 21:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
There's something to be said for the Paradox of Tolerance, and it seems extremely common in the thought process of the "mob" here, and on the site administration of other places--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
So you're saying I should be tolerant of violent spammers? Because this site has an entire page for a man who is just like Dirk, besides his issue is Atheism rather then Psychology. --Revolverman (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
(EC)Because we are our own worst enemy. Look at all the people who objected to a two-week block of the guy. I'm on your side, I really am, but I can't presume that my opinion deserves precedence over anyone else's and their dog's. If I did, then I might be a real moderator, but we can't have that on the troll haven we want to maintain! Seme Blue 21:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
As such, the fall on my sword bit. I will happely give up my rights to block Dirk. --Revolverman (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

?[edit]

I'm not sure to what you refer, or if you are criticizing me or Blue. It's not too much of a big deal, really, but just confusing. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 21:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly? Everyone. Its kinda sad when the home of love and tolerance Conservapedia has its regulars get along SO much better then here. We're too busy taking potshots, or letting magnormus assholes like Dirk run around JUST to score points off each other. It needs to change. --Revolverman (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Ignore Dirk. Don't feed the troll. It's not hard. If quotes about getting over grudges and forgiveness are not about love and tolerance, then I'm truly confused. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 22:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Ignoring him doesn't help, since he'll happily T-bone any discussion at 220 KpH to rant about how evil we, and psychology is. --Revolverman (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes it does. It's a perfect way to kill a wiki, as Purple Scissors and PJR will tell you. Trolls only want attention. Unfortunately, RW loves to give it to them. Read if you must, grumble after you do, wait two weeks and revert slowly. The troll will be gone becuase you have not fed it. Dirk doesn't bother me because I haven't really read anything he writes. It's no that hard. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 22:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Much like they told me about bullies when I was in school, ignoring them doesn't really stop if they just like causing damage. --Revolverman (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The damage he has caused is immense. IMMENSE. Tielec01 (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Ya, McDonald's will stick kick you out if you dump all the straws on the floor too. --Revolverman (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Here[edit]

RationalWiki:Community_Standards. Want to change something, bring it up on the talk page, enjoy status quo worship. Tyshenanigans 23:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Call it a Putsch then. --Revolverman (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Eh? Tyshenanigans 23:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Site history joke. --Revolverman (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
TOO MANY TABS. Tyshenanigans 23:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
TOO MANY LIMES, TOO MANY LIMES! (no one here will get that) --Revolverman (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Nope, sorry. Tyshenanigans 23:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Am I the only pro-wrestling fan on this site? --Revolverman (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Most likely. Tyshenanigans 23:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Well that kinda fucking sucks. --Revolverman (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
mmh. Tyshenanigans 23:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
So, When are you going to strip my Sysop rights? --Revolverman (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way.[edit]

Knock it off. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 23:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hasn't he wished you get RAPED? And you're cool with the fact he's abusing the rules to harass people? --Revolverman (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
New Year's Resolution #2344; trying to not worry about what people wish upon me on the internet. New Year's Resolution #456: No Drama. We have rules. You can't break them to maintain them. It's like burning down the village to save it. You want to ban him? Coop him. I am about to give you your powers back. If you abuse them I will Coop you. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 23:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Coop? Has anything ever happened because the Coop ToP? I'm not going to start that up again, because I didn't care for spamming the RC and I don't want to annoy people here I like, but my point still stands. I will do something about Dirk. --Revolverman (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Uncle Ho was banned for death threats once. You want something done with Dirk, you have options. 1) you can does as ToP suggest and use the Coop. You probably will be filibustered. You can attempt to modify the CS. You will be filibustered. Tyshenanigans 23:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Filibuster? I hardly know 'er! Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 23:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
You just fill people with confidence, don't you Ty? Also, hasn't Dirk done that to something like 4 other people, get Cooped, and have fuck all happen? ToP, you wonder why I really don't think the Coop is really a legitimate route? --Revolverman (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
(EC)^An example. Distractions, distractions distractions. Sock puppetry. Accusations of aspie fascism. RW is not fun anymore. Just like CP. ZOMG brxbrx. How do you know were you there. Accusations of taking over. Emails sent. Phones called. IMs on overdrive. Status Quo is God. Tyshenanigans 23:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
So, you tell me to use something, then list reasons why using it will be nothing more then a waste of electrons in a computer screen? Heh, I wonder if any one else gets the humor of this situation. --Revolverman (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm a bitter old man. Ignore me. Not like I've ever said anything worthwhile anyway. Tyshenanigans 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't go Emo on me. I already have too many close friends suffering depression this time of year. --Revolverman (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there a fight breaking out? Please tell me there's a fight breaking out. I am very bored, and there's nothing good on TV right now. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to get rid of Dirk, Ty is restoring him, and ToP threatened to Coop me like the anything happens in the Coop. --Revolverman (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Coop is where applied ethics goes to die. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I thought it was where time went to die, that or productive work. --Revolverman (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Revolverman[edit]

don't you think your username is a little insensitive to the victims of gun violence? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 18:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool Story, Bro. --Revolverman (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 18:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Yah what's the first song, The Tax Man, angry wingnut crap. Does Revolver have that misogynist anthem by John Lennon, Run for your life, or is that Rubber Soul? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 21:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Cool Story, Bro. --Revolverman (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocking ips like you just did.[edit]

Just a few hours, not a few months. Thanks! Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 22:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not looking at the time. I'm just clicking as fast as I can to keep up. Sorry for that. --Revolverman (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm moving to your talk page out of respect for everybody else.[edit]

Okay you're wrong about both Montreal and the Ottawa Valley being majority English. That's one thing. Which makes me wonder about where you're coming from on this whole question. I'm not one of those people who thinks "if you're not one of us, you can never understand us." That would be silly for me, as I'm a white guy who researches black history for a living. But I do believe that if we're going to talk about people and histories and places, we owe it to those people and histories and places to do more listening, reading, and asking, and less pontificating and making big, bold statements. Quebec is a complicated place with a long history of things like racism and bigotry and misunderstanding and walking all over people's rights. Just like everywhere else in the world, but with its own historical dynamics. If you don't know those histories and dynamics, and try to see a place as though it's just like some model of how politics works, you'll never get what's going on. Here. it's a question of greater good--getting to put up a sign in English,, being able to attend a minority language school, or the survival of something fragile--an island of French, historically hemmed in by stronger cultures and economies. Polar Bear In the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 00:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I admit I was wrong about the demographics of Montreal and the Ottawa valley, however there are still places in Quebec where French is not the main language. My main problem is not its attempts to protect its culture and languages, of course not. It's the fact that they stomp all over minority rights for it. You say yourself you study Black history. You should know Southern US Jim Crow Laws had wide support among the White majority. Yes I know, Bill 101 and the Quebec Language laws were no where near the level of Jim Crow, where there was active disenfranchisement. That doesn't make it any better though. It's still the Majority stepping on the Minority. I really question your claims of the Quebecois culture being "fragile". Its always been hemmed by the stronger culture and economies of British/English Canada, and the United States. However, even when it was under direct attack, its never vanished. Why on earth is under such risk now --Revolverman (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
"They stomp all over minority rights." Let's be clear about this. You have the right to a trial in a provincial court in English. You have the right to fill out your provincial tax return in English. You can get a birth certificate in English. You can vote in English. If you went to school in Canada in English, your kid can go to school in English. You can attend college or university in English regardless of anything else. These are all things you would be hard-pressed, if not completely unable to do if you were a Francophone living in any other province except New Brunswick. So if we're talking about "stomping all over minority rights," we also have to take into account the extent to which minority rights are protected in Quebec. And like I said, it's at risk now because it's still hemmed in. There's a difference between being a place where a culture and language can thrive and develop and being a museum piece, not dead, maybe, but not living in any meaningful sense of the word. In a time where capital and culture no longer respect borders, it's more important than ever to create a place where an isolated and minority culture can not only survive, but create ways to grow and thrive. It's not just about "not vanishing."
Do I wish that sometimes silly sign laws and narrow-minded nationalism weren't part of the equation? Of course I do, I'm a cosmopolitan guy. But at the end of the day, as the child of a francophone father and an anlo mother who did his growing up in an anglo suburban enclave, I'm grateful that 101 forced me to be able to engage with, contribute to, and take from the French Quebecois culture. Polar Bear In the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 01:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You'll like this.[edit]

I never said they were competent. Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 03:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If I was PQ president, I'd order Piss tests for the deputy house leader. I'd have to assume that lack of attention and confustion had to be somewhat chemically caused. --Revolverman (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Now the french are really pissing me off with the Habs blowing a 3-0 lead VS the Lightning. --Revolverman (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
A world where the Leafs make the playoffs and the Habs don't is not a world I will live in. Therrien won't keep his job past Easter if shit doesn't get better. Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 03:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Quite. Thank god we pulled out in the shootout. Don't need that 6-0 nightmare from a few days ago again. --Revolverman (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Revolverman[edit]

What kind of revolver? TyJFBAA 20:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

hmmm... The S&W Model 29 is tried and true, but that .44 magnum is for the most part overkill in anything but defending yourself from a bear. Mateba Autorevolver is damn good looking, and it fires the .357 magnum. Thats a nice one. The Colt SAA is another classic one, but then I don't want to be stepping on Ocelot's toes. The Webley is a darkhorse for me. It's got that British charm. I'd have to say one of those. --Revolverman (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I had an ancient H&R .22 calibre. Inaccurate to the point of useless. TyJFBAA 23:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey, some collector might want it. Revolvers also have at least one person willing to pay top dollar for it. --Revolverman (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

F-35 page?[edit]

If you do make a page about the wastes that are the F-35 and F-22, please do let me know. I have plenty of defense industry resources I could help track down and add. Even though my employer has done some contracted work on parts for both, having seen how Lockheed approaches both projects and how the defense industry's own periodicals laugh at both projects just makes me cringe when I have to deal with our F-35 work we do. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Will do. You had to work with Lockheed? Did they have a picture of the Pentagon on the wall that they gathered around and laughed at? --Revolverman (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
A section of my company specializes in producing military aerospace parts, and we made parts for the F-22 and still make parts for the F-35 (I don't mean to be vague, but I am honoring non-disclosure here). I've only visited the Lockheed assembly building in Georgia for the F-22s once, and never the assembly plant in Texas for the F-35. Given that I've only ever talked with engineering staff, we've always avoided talking about the viability of the planes. Though I did have an R&D guy from BAE Systems once tell me that, in his opinion, the F-35 was obsolete for today's climate before the first one was ever even built. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not shocked, given that these planes take about 20 years from the first blueprints before the prototype is rolled out. As you said too, the idea of manned, pure Air-to-Air fighters is obsolete in it of itself. My plan for the page was the first part would be explaining why the F-35 is a bad plane on a technical level, and the second part explaining that even if the F-35 was a good plane, its job no longer exists. --Revolverman (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Give me a couple days here to find you some sources, but I'm sure I can look around and get them. IIRC, I once read that "the F-35's blueprints go through, at minimum, 30 revision changes every day!" I really want to find that one. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll make a rough outline later today, hitting the points that I know about, and you can correct and add anything I missed or you know because you've done work with the plane itself. --Revolverman (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
We could, possibly, make it an article tied in the our article on military-industrial complex. I'm just curious, do you even know about the "alternative engine controversy" involving the F-35, or was that something mostly cared about in the circles of the defense/aerospace industry? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Not 100% sure, but does that have to do with the fact it only has one engine with no backup in case of damage or failure, or the cracks that's showed up after some test flights a few weeks ago? --Revolverman (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so it was just a controversy limited to within defense-oriented circles. It actually surrounded the fact that Roles Royce and Northrup Grumman wanted a piece of that F-35 money pie, so they lobbied Congress to let them develop a secondary engine to the F-35 to, as you said, it could be there in case the primary engine failed and so that the F-35's costs could, somehow, be reduced by adding another engine. I remember when that whole thing was going down and I, thinking that having a "secret" level of clearance meant something, got a random ass call from Northrop Grumman asking me to call my senator or congressman and tell them the F-35 needs the secondary engine. I then asked them why they called and they responded "We have information that you work on the F-35 project, and we wanted to get as many people involved in it to support us as possible." Given my level of clearance, the one and only way they could've obtained that information is from the government itself. There is just no other possible way I can think of for them to have obtained that information. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Holy shit, that is a total clusterfuck. I love how they say they need to just "add" an engine like its something that can be strapped on anywhere there is space on the plane like its a tactacool assault rifle. --Revolverman (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know. The whole reason Congress finally killed the secondary engine idea was because it would've caused the entire F-35 JSA program to have to start over from scratch, costing triple what it already has for an airplane that has yet to be completed and released for general combat flight (according to Popular Science magazine, there are F-35s that have been completed, but they are still classified as "test only" vehicles and can only be flown by test pilots and are not considered combat-ready). Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Heh, wonderful. What should the lead be on it you think? The technical problems of the plane, or the incredible political clusterfuck around it? --Revolverman (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hypothetical lead: "The plane itself is a broken piece of crap and its an ongoing product of a horrifyingly inept political system. On top of that, even if the plane was perfect, the job it was supposed to do in the Air Force doesn't exist anymore." Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
That works. show the plane is shit, then why it ended up shit, and why it wouldn't matter if it wasn't shit. --Revolverman (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The most interesting part to me is that the F-22 and F-35 are relics of the arms race. The military has, time and again, tried to justify the cost of both planes as "we need to be more advanced than China/North Korea/Russia with our air fleet, even though all three countries have said time and again they have no interest in developing so-called "fifth generation" aircraft, and that, while the F-22's technology is more advanced than anything they could compete with anytime soon, they'd rather spend the R&D money where is could actually be helpful. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, its not just that. It LOOKS awesome. You could get cutting edge armor, gear and weapons for the men and woman on the ground, but that's not at all "cool", unlike the new 5th gen aircraft, or the hyper-carriers that are being made to replace the old hyper-carriers that are still way ahead of the curve and show no signs of losing it. I mean GIs are still using weapons that were developed in the 50s! --Revolverman (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Goodpost.gifTyJFBAA 14:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at your sandbox article, I think it's ready for the prime-time. Sure, it's still not pretty. But let it go into the wild so that it may flourish. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Heh, glad someone likes it! : P --Revolverman (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey there[edit]

I get around, what can I say! I enjoy RW too much not to contribute from time to time :) Tagaziel (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good! That was about my line of thinking when I joined too. --Revolverman (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! I'll put it to good use. I have even fewer excuses to stay away now. Work still remains a problem! Tagaziel (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Haha, easy choice. You do good work on the other Wikis. --Revolverman (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

the BoN added a page breaking useless picture.[edit]

You're right. I went back to fix it, but got distracted by the fact I had to unblock myself after an unwarranted hour-long black. And then unblock my IP after an unwarranted hour-long black. Sorry I missed it in the first place. TeenageWasteland (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No big, I admit I was lazy just hitting the undo button with that. --Revolverman (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Generally speaking, re-editing somebody else's talkpage comments is against the rules. Please keep this in mind in the future. Thanks for your cooperation and continued support of the RationalWiki project. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I know, and normally I wouldn't, but hey, no one was missing the original message. Also, you don't need to treat me like I'm new here : P --Revolverman (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I know, but I just got off work, and am trying to moderate my instinctive management tone. Otherwise, I would've come off as a complete asshole just now. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I see. --Revolverman (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Gail Dines[edit]

First of all, I'm sorry to hear you got fucked on your paycheck by the rat bastards. Second, I miss your old username, but you gotta do what's right for you. Third, do you care to explain your recent rollback of all my edits on the Gail Dines page? Rand0 (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A) Thanks, hopefully its been fixed, but we'll see. B) This has always been my user name on the site... is something happening I missed? C) Radical tonal shifts on pages done unilaterally are no-nos on the site. I've never heard of the person in question honestly. Just enforcing site tradition. --Revolverman (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought your old name was NuttyRoux? It was not a unilateral radical tonal shift. I have heard of the subject in question and have studied her work. I explained on the article creator's userpage that unless he provided evidence of transphobia, it wasn't going to fly. Then, I myself went about looking for evidence of transphobia in her writing/speeches/off the cuff remarks. I found nothing. After nine or ten days of the article creator failing themselves to find evidence, I decided to protect RW from a defamation lawsuit, a.k.a: make the article on mission. I should note that the one reference on the page neither alleges transphobia nor is anything remotely credible (although it happens that the article correctly identifies Dines as a Marxist, but her own words could be cited there). I'm going to revert the page back to how it was before the rollback and edit the talk page to explain why. Rand0 (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps this would clarify your conclusion?--ZooGuard (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
More like my confusion. Rand0 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Given my problems with Nutty, I find it hilarious you thought I was him.--Revolverman (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You've been nominated![edit]

Over here. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:23, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Campaign here! Serocco 06:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)