Talk:Yonaguni Monument

-–142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:44, 13 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

I second this thumb.

Thought this sounded familiar, Skeptoid did an episode on this a few years ago. Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I heard of it from a Graham Hancock 'documentary' actually. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:56, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Ufology nav

There is one sentence in the article alluding to the Ancient Aliens television show. Simply because that exists is not reason enough to add the {{ufology}} navbox to this page. Every single major (non-Christian European) archaeological site has some von Daniken esque idiot claiming aliens did it. {{Pseudohistorynav}} covers this page perfectly fine.—Ryulong (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention {{pseudohistorynav}} has a flying saucer as part of its icon, and "ufology" is the pseudoscience of purported modern UFOs rather than ancient astronaut theory.—Ryulong (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Jesus tap dancing Christ, Reverend Black Percy, you can argue over the fucking ufology box but replacing the entire page wholesale with the Wikipedia article with two lines of snark thrown in is fucking bullshit.—Ryulong (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Teymur Kasamanli

Why does this page on Japanese pseudoarchaeology need not one but two quotes from some Azerbaijani jerkoff who doesn't even have an article locally, Reverend Black Percy? They're shit, they're jabs at me for insisting ufology wasn't an important aspect of this page, and again they're shit and irrelevant.—Ryulong (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Moved from RBP's talk page

Yonaguni

One sentence in the whole of the page linking to Ancient Aliens doesn't justify {{ufology}} on top of {{pseudohistorynav}}.—Ryulong (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It most certainly does. We're here to cover the woo. This site is a notorious ufologist convention piece. Have you googled "yonaguni aliens" at all? Did you listen to the Skeptoid episode? Did you watch the Ancient Aliens episode on Yonaguni? I've seen the entire series, I'm sad to say. You're wrong, Ryulong. I'll be rewriting the article with the inclusion of the Ufology template, and it will stay there. Cheerio. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Groan. Reverend has been adding sidebars to quite a few pages over the last week; all without problems. Except, as usual, on a Ryulong Blessed Page™. I have no opinion on the inclusion of the sidebar, but instead of "revert and assert"—revert the edit and assert your right—you could try "keep and ask" for a change: keep the change and ask why the editor thought it was a good idea. You might get better results. Perhaps try learning about the Socratic method for example. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you fucking replace the entire page with a copied and pasted version of the Wikipedia article?—Ryulong (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well I hate to show up so soon again under these circumstances, but blocking is not to be used just because someone made an edit you don't like. And this is an even bigger issue: it does appear you copied a bunch of content from the Wikipedia page, without attribution. That's a big no-no. I thought the prose sounded a little odd when I edited it, but I didn't bother to look at the history. --Ymir (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I advise you to read up everthing; if attribution was lacking then that's my fault and it should have been included. Further; I'm still in the process of rewriting the additions. I'll do some edits to reflect this now. Notice also that I myself took the course of action to alert a moderator about what is going on, in order that the eyes of the community orient towards what is going on here. I'm the first one to admit to mistake. On the other hand, that doesn't mean Ruylong isn't a complete vandal in stating that Yonaguni has nothing to do with ufology, in demanding the ufology template stay off our article, and in repeatedly edit warring me over this. So, again, let none say that the day is done. I'm going in to repair my faulty edits right now, anyways. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You copied the whole fucking page, overwrote everything I started, and inserted two paragraphs of shit solely dedicated to ufology just because I thought that pseudohistory was more important? That's fucked up.—Ryulong (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Inserted from FCP's talk page

Someone's been overreacting and misusing their sysop tools, but it's not Ryulong in this case. Plus: denialism about obvious Wikipediapasta and trying to put this all on Ryulong. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:03, 7 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

Rev, did you really copy and paste all that from WP?---Mona- (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@142 Nothing is being "denied", that's completely false. And abuse? Hardly. I very rarely discipline anyone here whatsoever, and this time - after what appeared to be a launch into an edit war I refuse to partake in - I delivered a block at the exact moment I contacted a moderator with all the relevant data of all edits. I want this looked at from all sides.

@Mona As I stated on my own talk page already;

"I advise you to read up everthing; if attribution was lacking then that's my fault and it should have been included. Further; I'm still in the process of rewriting the additions. I'll do some edits to reflect this now. Notice also that I myself took the course of action to alert a moderator about what is going on, in order that the eyes of the community orient towards what is going on here. I'm the first one to admit to mistake."

I decided to publish as I was too tired to keep reworking the text for now (under the perhaps faulty impression that the page could rest for just a few hours before getting further surgery from our editors, me included). I never claimed that I wrote it explicitly, and I already conceded that I should have credited it more clearly (I did include many wpl links in order to refer as much as appeared reasonable to TOW in this "draft"). There's no question about if I based my addition on the wikipedia article. I did, clearly, and never stated that I didn't - though I very much maintain that the intention was for the text to be rewritten entirely. To me, it appears obvious that this wasn't the correct path to take and there's no argument from me regarding that, only a chance to learn. I'm still relatively new here, and to wiki editing, and sometimes the only way to learn is to mess up. Still; this is separate from Ruylong attempting to edit war unreasonably (as Carpet already mentions on my talkpage). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Mod Hat™

I don't know this mess and don't really want to get involved. Two issues that I see: [1] Nobody is talking about the edits on the talkpage. Everyone: Go to the fucking talk page, and take the advice of Carpetsmoker -- "instead of "revert and assert"—revert the edit and assert your right—[...] try "keep and ask"". [2] Reverend blocked Ryulong, who is not a sysop, for something that's not a valid block reason. Reverend: Don't do blocks of more than 1 minute for people who're edit-warring you. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

He's not a sysop? Facepalm... I wouldn't have blocked him if I didn't think he could unblock himself. My bad. I'll apologize to him for that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

A reasonable edit

I consider this to be a fully reasonable edit. Thanks for that Ryulong, and thanks for clearing out the waiting-to-be-rewritten content that was obviously and admittedly (there's nobody denying that) lifted straight off of Wikipedia - with the intention by me of it being reworked with relative haste. Despite my positive motivation and good intentions of nothing but a participatory and well-intentioned nature, I understand now that this is not the order of things here, and for that, I'll apologize to everyone I have to. There's no controversy about that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

An unreasonable edit

Boy, that didn't take long. Unacceptable behaviour from Ruylong. And, for the record, when I say "this is my work" I mean in contrast to the wiki-paste, not in any sense to mean that the article or anything I put on it is "mine". Just to be clear. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a shit quote from some unknown jerkoff.—Ryulong (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You sure do swear a lot, don't you? The quote has good reason to stay, Ryulong. It's snarky, relevant and funny. Deal with it. You're just being unreasonable, as Carpet points out above. When I do something wrong, I apologize. When you do something right, you get credit from me. You, on the other hand... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong wrote "this quote is just to make jabs at me". This seems extremely unlikely. I support its addition: it is a good example of the pseudohistorical thought process of "X is weird, Y did it". 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Who is this Azerbaijani guy and why should anyone care?—Ryulong (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

He's a ufologist - a very notable school of thought, as I'm sure you're aware. And his quote on the Yonaguni Monument is hilarious, snarky, relevant and on-mission. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

He's not mentioned anywhere else on RationalWiki and you only referenced him for the sake of providing the quotes to attack him. Kimura's the crank here that should be quoted. Not some ufologist you found when googling "yonaguni monument ufology".—Ryulong (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The Yonaguni Monument itself wasn't mentioned on RW until you wrote this article; this is not valid reasoning. Perm: Add quotes from Kimura and keep RBP's quote. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

RBP's two quotes are from some unknown idiot that has barely anything to do with this topic that he found in a 5 minute google search. Mocking him when he's not even the main researcher is pointless.—Ryulong (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Is the quote stupid and representative of a large category of stupid? Yes. Its notability (or lack thereof) is irrelevant. Again: Add Kimura quotes and keep RBP's quotes. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 04:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, "unknown idiot" describes around 80% of the cranks we cover, really (hello Project Blue Beam) |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{withdraws coolly} 04:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

BUt it's not at all relevant to this topic. Why would this guy be the source of multiple quotes on this page other than the fact that RBP found him in a google search to prove me wrong and add {{ufology}} here?—Ryulong (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, on relevance: "Is the quote stupid and representative of a large category of stupid? Yes." Again, on RBP trying to attack you: "This seems extremely unlikely." Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 15:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't "attacked" Ruylong once (and I've constantly given him the benefit of the doubt, and owned up to my mistakes when they've happened - e.g. supposing that he could unblock himself). His amicable trade for these facts have been to unrepentantly call me a plagiarizing cockmongler and to literally assume that even when downvoted by four to one, his version gets to stand. Cause mob decision is on a "shit quote" from some "unknown jerkoff". Ruylong is really pushing it; I see now how this is a user that clearly cannot be trusted with a mop. Regarding the quote - it's apt, funny, missional, sourced, and constitutes a meaningful and original contribution to an otherwise stub article that Ruylong thinks he owns. The quote needs reinsertion on the page, and it deserves to stay there. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Given that you blocked him without doing the dilligence to determine if that was an extra shitty thing to do, do you think it would help some if you took a giant step back and tried to be extra super nice? Just wondering! Hipocrite (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

FFS Ryulong, try, just once, to exhibit some basic standards of decent human behaviour. How on earth could the use of that quote be interpreted as having jabs at you? --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The quotes are still garbage and they have no real relevance to the page other than being a barely legitimate example of woo about these rocks considering that this one guy who isn't referenced anywhere else on the page in any form gets two quotes.—Ryulong (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Now as I said just now in an edit summary, the quotes from Teymur Kasamanli are completely superfluous to the article as a whole because the quotes RBP pulled are the only actual places that he is ever mentioned on the page. There's no attempt to incorporate his crankery in any fashion, not to mention that RBP has seen fit to link to his Gravatar profile of all things to serve as proof of his crankery. The article would be better served by providing quotes from entirely different people in those places. Unless Kasamanli is particularly known for his shit theories on Yonaguni, then the quotes are pointless and only serve to attack him. And it's particularly telling of how completely irrelevant this guy is when Googling "yonaguni monument ufology kasamanli" only gives 6 hits. Quote someone else FFS.—Ryulong (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Bro, walk away, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I wrote this fucking page and I don't want it to go to shit because one person thinks mocking this total nobody of a woo peddler is worth doing on this particular topic.—Ryulong (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Can someone find someone more notable to use as a quote to make everyone happy? Hipocrite (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The mob is already happy; Ruylong isn't, and is indeed perpetually unhappy at all this. He's in favor of talk page solutions on the one condition that he gets his way. This isn't one of those cases. Thus, he presses Undo first and thinks of a reason to go in the edit box second. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You abused your sysop tools. Relinqush them, please. Then we can talk about the rest of this. Hipocrite (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"Abuse"? Sure thing, senpai - the moment your seeing eye dog gets good enough at reading that he stops blatantly skipping large portions of text. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, abuse. We don't block people for an hour if they are not sysops or otherwise in one of the block-for-this categories. You know this. You abused your tools by not doing the requisite diligence before use. It's ok, but it raised the heat level here dramatically. You want it lowered? Uncheck the box. There are other solutions that involve you being aware that the person you are arguing against was placed in an uncomfortable position by your actions - but you're not doing anything about that. Hipocrite (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I gave you a good enough reason. Kasamanli is totally irrelevant to this topic. I gave you this reason yesterday. I'm giving you the same reason today. There is nothing about this guy that makes sense to have him quoted twice on this page other than your insistence that he be there. Why not a quote from the History Channel clip? Why not more quotes from Kimura or Schoch or any number of the other people that are already referenced on the page? What is it about this one guy and his particular stupidity that makes sense that he's quoted twice? He's barely got any web presence.—Ryulong (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Ryu: Perm. Add MORE quotes. Don't remove. Calm down. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting

The quotes from Teymur Kasamanli are entirely superfluous to this page. Reverend Black Percy added them to the page as a way to spite me for having edit warred with him over the inclusion of {{ufology}}. As I pointed out weeks ago, Kasmalani is a nobody among nobodies. They add nothing to the page other than a "take that" directed at me over the edit warring because it was the justification RBP needed to add the navbox despite obvious reasons not to. Why is this man important? Why has RBP singled him out? Why has he linked to his Gravatar and Google+ pages? What is that supposed to prove? All in all, he's just some crank who's not cranky enough for this topic, particularly when there are already much better quotes from the guy who has dedicated his life to studying it and a guy who decided to debunk that first guy. Cut out the Kasmalani quotes. Cut out the Ufology nav. Provide better information and snark that doesn't focus on some random wingnut who doesn't even appear on the first 100 results of Google search for this topic.—Ryulong (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

oh my god fam I can't believe you still aren't over this |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Must've been one swood dude.} 11:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

"Kasmalani is a nobody among nobodies" -> This is not really a very good reason to not include this. Many of RW's pages consist of lesser-known authors writing about something, and especially the "top quotes" are simply the most erroneous and/or funniest quotes we can find on the subject (which are often by lesser known authors/bloggers/interviewees/etc). I think this probably fits the bill, but if you have a better one, by all means change it... Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and adding to that: wikis are built on compromise. Sometimes it's worth fighting a battle over something, sometimes it isn't. This would most definitely fall in the last category. For your own sake as much as anyone else's: please let it go. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, for the love of every single deity ever worshiped by man or beast in the past, present or future, stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you has it in for you. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I'll take a antibacterial and absorb it.} 12:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Rwiki doesn't seem to rely on conventional notability. I mean, an unknown crank making comments on a well known field of quack seems to be fine, so I'd say this is. I mean, if you have something funnier, go ahead.Keter (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to raise the issue again because Kasmalani is completely unknown even when it comes to this bit of woo. A three year old blog post by a complete unknown is pretty useless as an opening quote for this page. It just seems to be RBP taking the piss out of this complete nobody when we should be taking the piss out of Kimura or even finding out what those nutcases von Daniken or Tsoukalos have to say about the Yonaguni formation. And RBP still added all this useless bunk after several hours of edit warring that resulted in his posting the entirety of the Wikipedia page here. But that's not really the point. The quotes are garbage, irrelevant, and not even funny.—Ryulong (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

If you saw the literal broadcasted brain cancer that is Ancient Aliens and didn't have serious issues with long term grudge holding and persecution, you'd have a better opinion of that quote.Keter (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

At least they're notable and recognizable unlike this Kasmalani guy.—Ryulong (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)