User talk:Sprocket J Cogswell
Contents |
[edit] Great understanding...
Hey Jetson,
Since I am new to this I guess I would like to ask you for Some guidance on using the site. You appear to have a lot of posts on a variety of topics. What is the best way to get a forum for discussion? I have placed two entries which were removed VERY fast by you and polarbearintheforest. Are you moderators or what's the story? Regards — Unsigned, by: Storytime / talk / contribs
- Are you talking about this and this? Those aren't so much "entries" as they are "random thoughts." If you want to raise a point for discussion, start a conversation on the rlevant talk page, don't just drop a non-sequitor into an article. Polar Bear In the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 21:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- What the bear said. You could start a topic at Talk:Amero or Talk:North American Union and see where it goes from there. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Right on, thanks
[edit] If you use rollback instead of undo...
...the red bangs go away by themselves, I believe. Makes it easier to track the bad edits. Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 23:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yup. Been doing that. He found a new bunch of bunches of numbers, it seems. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously, how pathetic does he have to be that doing this makes him happy? Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 23:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- не знаю. Меня не волнует. (both ignorant and apathetic, me-- don't know, don't care. :) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously, how pathetic does he have to be that doing this makes him happy? Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 23:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Universal Life Church revision
The old way is not accurate and it looks like it was written by a gradeschoolerStmichael1060 (talk)
- Your way looks like it was written by a marketing suit. I suggest discussing your changes on the article's talk page. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The way it was prior to revision it was using words like free or $30 for this. That is marketing.Stmichael1060 (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Further discussion of this matter belongs on Talk:Universal Life Church Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Libertarianism
I supposed you probably as an admin lock down a page against editing whenever it appears to be going back and forth, but if you take a look at it, you will see that the "libertarianism" entry is badly biased and in need of fixing. — Unsigned, by: Starchild / talk / contribs
The article's talk page is the place for this discussion. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Why?
Why did you edit my brand- new article?— Unsigned, by: 63.248.163.106 / talk / contribs
- Why did we need the brand new article?--MikallakiM 00:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- It was hopelessly off mission, and written in the style of a middle schooler. Here is the text of the deleted article:
- Phineas And Ferb is a TV show about two kids who want to keep their summer busy, so they create fun (and reality-defying) inventions, while their older sister tries to report them to an incredibly irresponsible mother. On top there of that is a B-plot consisting of a anthropomorphic turquoise pet platypus who just happens to be a secret agent who fights an extremely inept mad scientist who also defies reality and all conventional wisdom, and the scientist's invention "inadvertently" causes the invention the boys made to disappear right before the mom gets the chance to see it(no fair). This is an incredibly bad idea.
- You really think this has a place on RationalWiki? Sprocket J Cogswell
01:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- It was hopelessly off mission, and written in the style of a middle schooler. Here is the text of the deleted article:
- If you want to reach an audience who may be skimming quickly, I suggest using shorter sentences. Lead the reader from one idea to the next. I'm not sure what "this" is, in that last sentence, that is supposed to be such "an incredibly bad idea."
- The main thing though, is this: Written for a RationalWiki audience, an article needs to fit with the RW:MISSION. Hope that helped. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Next/Previous
Dude, thanks for those links. If I ever delete them, please restore them as it will certainly be unintentional. (I'm doing a lot of wholesale editing so dumb things may occur). Cheers VOXHUMANA 02:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Peter's way looks more elegant, with the div and all. I'm watching and learning here, trying not to get underfoot too much. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Don't know if you actually cared
But in regards to your query about cult of personality: Televangelists and pastors. Billy Graham, Norman Van Peal, and maybe even more recent ones like Rick Warren or the Bakkers held vast sway before and after Kennedy. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 2:21 pm, Today (UTC−4)
- Norma Vincent Peel, wasn't she a stripper in the sixties? God-botherers come and go... would you say there is a cult of personality around Fred Phelps then? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Within his family, definitely. Warren's a bit of a stretch when compared to the others, but I think if you look at the excesses of Bakker and how he was still able to keep his flock together or if you look at Billy Graham and his crusades and the effect the Positive Thinking movement, both show that these men had enormous influence. Graham was on the most admired list for 49 straight years and the title "Pastor of the Presidents." Peale it's a little harder to see, but the influence (though not nearly as strong today) of this positive thinking attitude can be seen in the new age movement, to the continuing popularity of Guidepost, and other parts of the crank world. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 23:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I suppose. As it stands, the list in our Personality cult article leans heavily towards heads of state, with a sprinkling of some of the further-out cult leaders such as David Koresh. I suspect that expanding the list to include every nut job or enthusiast with a smattering of followers would lead to cruft bloat. I care enough to keep a casual eye on it, but I doubt I will be adding to that list. Cheers, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Within his family, definitely. Warren's a bit of a stretch when compared to the others, but I think if you look at the excesses of Bakker and how he was still able to keep his flock together or if you look at Billy Graham and his crusades and the effect the Positive Thinking movement, both show that these men had enormous influence. Graham was on the most admired list for 49 straight years and the title "Pastor of the Presidents." Peale it's a little harder to see, but the influence (though not nearly as strong today) of this positive thinking attitude can be seen in the new age movement, to the continuing popularity of Guidepost, and other parts of the crank world. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 23:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)