User talk:Osaka Sun/Archive 3

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Nom Nom Nom!!![edit]

[Un]fortunately, I have nominated you for the lowly position of Moderator. Please go here to accept or decline. Thank you. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

UCS[edit]

Can you give me some links where UCS endorses some specific plant designs?

My impression of UCS is that they avoid characterizing themselves as anti-nuclear only to preserve their image of neutrality. The content of their arguments is very similar to those of acknowledged anti-nuclear groups. --Tweenk (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

For one, the EPR due to its double-walled containment structure. It's true that the UCS does lean anti-nuclear, but the fact that they've admitted it to be a potential stop-gap measure makes their analyses a bit more nuanced than the "Shut Down Everything" part of the movement. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The EPR is seriously overdesigned and therefore difficult to build. I wonder if they endorse it simply because it's so complicated, so that they can later criticize it for being expensive. Anyway, this seems like useful information that I could include in the article. --Tweenk (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for improving my contributions, such as in the Paul Krugman, Katie Pavlich, and JAQing off pages, instead of just deleting them like some would. That Katie Pavlich is quite the section eight, isn't she? ClothCoat (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

...and, in case no one's said it lately, thank you for your unceasing efforts at maintaining and improving the wiki. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Forbes[edit]

You're right, it works better as a footnote. Thanks. Lola Lazerface (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"Then watch it go down..."[edit]

What, do you think I get some sort of sense of pride out of writing a WIGO that gets a high vote score? Do you? 'Cause that would be pretty lame. Gawker is a fairly mainstream blog, so the edit was well-placed. People will like it, or they won't. Makes no difference to me. But to move it without even asking the guy who wrote it, and then move it again when he objects is kind of a bitch move, Santa. Listening to Ella Fitzgerald sing "Baby, if I'm the bottom, you're the top" is very different after reading Dan Savage's column..Moderator 01:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"Gawker is a fairly mainstream blog" doesn't negate the fact that the article is shit. The 'fuck the monarchy because the economy is bad' argument largely resembles anti-immigrant rhetoric during recessions; it's largely forgotten once GDP returns to normal levels. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the help with the CAGW article. I'd like to see it get a high Google rank but don't know anything about that SEO stuff (or whatever it's called). Doctor Dark (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Osaka Sun[edit]

Not that I'm terribly passionate about the Ontario article, and you've likely done more work in editing it, so I'm not really in the mood for reversing edits in it. I thought I'd put in the 3 flags to show how less inspired Ontario was vis-à-vis TROC. I'm not a big fan of people poking at the mayor's obesity. If he lost 100 pounds but became even more a neo-con, would leftists like him more? Alternately, if he, say, gained 100 pounds and had to use a walker, but became as leftist as Miller, would NOW forget all that obesity? The McGuilty comment is deserved, and Horwath ain't a Ralph Nadar insofar that she has a far better shot to leadership in her arena than he, so leftists can feel freer to say mean truthful things about McGuilty. While many American teens go to Quebec, BC, and other provinces to drink, Ontario gets a fair share, and a good amount of it has to do with Nancy Reagan. Sure, we have archaic liquor laws, but this is a relative bright spot. Also I like the Tragically Hip, and while this wiki encourages snark and Canadians, and particularly Ontarians, such as myself can't be seen as too uppity, the semi-favourable comparison to REM doesn't seem to me as unwarranted. TH also makes me think of Hoodoo Gurus. Cheers.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 20:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You do know that Miller used to be quite overweight, right? Anyways, due to the crack video Ford's probably not going to stay in office much longer, so you can do whatever you want with the text.
I removed the "McGuilty" comment because the name-calling from both sides of the spectrum is really getting annoying recently ("CONservative," "Herr Harper" and "Justine Trudeau" somehow makes you edgy). And I know US liquor laws contribute to tourism in Ontario, but can you just link to an news article (and not a random Democratic Underground thread)? Osaka Sun (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Miller seemed well-fed, but not as much as Rob, or even Doug. I think he's going to be re-elected given how the Left is divided. Give it another 4 to 6 years before most hate him. I first heard "McGuilty" from a CBC caller, who also used the term "poli-trick-tion." As he sounded Caribbean, I thought he might gotten it from Peter Tosh's "poli-tricks." "CONservative" and "LIEberal" are old. "Herr Harper" is simply anti-German, and "Justine Trudeau" is lame given how he won a boxing match. Very well, no more McGuilty (however I like it the term). I might do the Nancy Reagan thing for Canada. Cheers.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 23:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't delete talk pages[edit]

We don't delete talk pages. SophieWilderModerator 21:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Totnes, I moved all of PIDOOMA's talk page discussion to Argumentum ex culo's. Now I'm going to have to rollback it again.
Edit: Didn't know this existed. Thanks. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Copy edit on WIGO[edit]

Thanks. That is better. BigCat (meow) 01:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't spoil my fun[edit]

http://xkcd.com/966/ VOXHUMANA 05:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove the protection of Armenian-genocide-denial[edit]

You seem to have deleted my content that is well-cited and well-documented all 7500 characters, and then you protected the page abusing your sys-op privileges. You need to revert those changes back to mine, since you have no evidence to dispute it and let the historians write history rather than forcing your way with your sys-op powers. It's quite disrespectful and you did it without argument/or-using-the-talk-page. You just flat out pressed delete and vandalized the page. Anthrax (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

OS, I do think we need to have a discussion about this. Anthrax is bringing in a lot of information and citations and I don't think we're doing our job in listening. I'm not saying your version is wrong (I know very little about this topic), but you do need to address the edits as Anthrax has. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 05:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I've already addressed some of Anthrax's claims in the current article (and the talk page), but I do agree that they need to be expanded into a debunking equivalent of the size of the Holocaust denial page. Nonetheless, much of his "well-cited" and "well-documented" content is full of logical fallacies (ie. US military ambassadors were pro-intervention, therefore they're wrong, or the researchers have Armenian ties, so they're biased!)
He's already been reverted by other users; let's see if he can discuss this in another part of the site before the protection expires. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you think...[edit]

Do you think that guy was serious? He sounded pretty genuine and his website seems serious as well. Would someone really set up their own website just to troll us? I think he was a true believer. (p.s. Look over the centrist page if you get the chance and are in the mood please I think more criticisms should be added, they get let off the hook too often. ClothCoat (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he's a troll; he wouldn't have prepared all those links if he wasn't serious. Actually a decent primer on the average Conservapedia user.
It's the first time in a while that I've seen the "Democratic Party used to be pro-labour and anti-civil rights, so anyone supports labour is a racist" card. Regardless of the blacks who flocked to the Dems due to the opportunities provided by New Deal (which was actually the origin of the the Dixiecrat split) and the fact that most of the Civil Rights movement leaned left, he seems to have completely ignored the anti-welfare rhetoric that the Southern Strategy encompassed. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Centrist stupidity[edit]

Sorry I just saw your message that "centrist stupidity" doesn't apply to political parties. I don't know... we have political parties under "extreme wingnuttery" and "extreme moonbattery" so I don't see the harm in adding a centrist party with it's fair of faults under that category. Don't get me wrong, I'll vote centrist sometimes and consider the Democratic party much saner than the GOP (and the Liberal Party saner than the current conservative party of Canada) but I still think it would be worth adding some centrist parties under that category (I wouldn't add the centrist party in South Africa under that category, for instance, since they do fairly decent work). It's your call though I don't mind either way. ClothCoat (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Which parties do we have under moonbattery/wingnuttery? I remember we've done that for a bunch of Communist ones, but I don't know the exact number. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Moonbattery we have a lot of Maoist/Stalinist parties, wingnuttery we have the tea party and constitution party and a lot of others I think, like One Nation, the Islamic party of Britain, the BNP, and the most extreme right parties, like the National Socialist party and others like it. ClothCoat (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Also all of the parties under Category:Far-right political parties are also under extreme wingnuttery. ClothCoat (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: PM[edit]

Finally dragged my ass around to looking at Harper's stuff, and before I dig into adding new details since the page was last touched significantly, I made what I thought was an addition about abortion and then read lower and found it was already there in a different category. Since you're the one who's been most prominent on the page of late, and you asked me to check it out, I thought I'd involve you first, as nobody's leapt up to do anything just from the entry in RC. Talk:Stephen_Harper#Gay_marriage_-_category_conflict has the deets. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 04:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, he could have gotten rid of gay marriage any time he wanted to post-majority. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Patriot Act[edit]

That was a mistake on my part, thanks for catching it. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 21:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Fiscal cliff[edit]

I added some stuff. Go nuts. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 21:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

And so begins the downfall of Stephen Harper[edit]

I really hope that this prediction fares better than your absolute failure to call North Korea right. But I kinda doubt it. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 23:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Duffy's own words. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

CIA[edit]

I noticed you removed all references to MKULTRA from the CIA article. Could you elaborate on your reasons? Rand0 (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Removing a hyperlink is far from "removing all references." Osaka Sun (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh. Wow. Sorry. Rand0 (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

WIGO Entries[edit]

There's a move afoot to reduce the number of WIGO entries where you can't see what the story is about without clicking on the link. Even then I have no idea what Toronto's mayor has to do with the great pumpkin. Please, to save the rest of us needless clicking, can you make your WIGO entries a bit less obscure.

Thanks. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to show I'm not picking on you - RationalWiki:What_is_going_on_in_the_blogosphere?#Cryptic. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, brah, a link to a tweet that is itself a tinyurl link to a silly gif? Do you have a Facebook account? 'Cause that may be a more appropriate place for that sort of commentary. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 17:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Predictions and WIGOs[edit]

Why bother micro-managing other editors' shit? If you don't like a prediction or a WIGO, vote it down and move on. Especially the predictions, which are signed by a specific user, and therefore not really as "wiki-collaborative" as the rest of the site. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 13:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoins[edit]

So why did you remove my suggestion? Refugeetalk page 07:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh wait... nevermind. Didn't see it there. Going to bed now. thanks, gnite. Refugeetalk page 07:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


Is it true that you're also that one IP?[edit]

And if so, why do you keep switching between the two? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 07:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I was (by permission) vandal binned, but can still edit anonymously. If you want to know why, xkcd will tell. (Vacation.) Osaka Sun (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 08:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think something is missing here...[edit]

A kilo is missing here. What was axed? Zero (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Put the 31 (+1) claims into four separate categories (MediaWiki's revision history lists any shifted text as red)
  • Trimmed down the part on pareidolia
  • Deleted a link to TV Tropes insinuating that Dubya was intentionally being dumb to orchestrate a cover-up.
Not much, really. On its own the article is over 40,000 characters long. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The history was just tough to read. Lots of red and I couldn't quite place what went where. Thanks for clearing it. Zero (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"Snarky Comments Islam"[edit]

If it weren't for the fact that there were apologetics for Islam on pages that have almost nothing to do with Islam, I suppose I wouldn't have to insert any snarky comments. The Ottoman Empire treated all non-Muslims as second class citizens and committed genocide against 1.5 million Christians. I don't know how you can say it's "racist" to portray them as evil if he even did portray the Ottoman Empire as evil. Is Orwell's book racist against Russians? Criticizing an empire isn't criticizing a race. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrote quite a bit of the Armenian Genocide denial article, I know that the Ottomans did.
The attempts by C.S. Lewis to distinguish between his white protagonists (he didn't appear to know that the original Christians were Semitic) and the "dark face[d] and long beard[ed]" antagonists are so blatant that it overshadows any criticism of the Empire. This is while he was very willing to whitewash Christian atrocities. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
This reminds me of Tolkien's LotR... where Tolkien writes about the swarthy and rude Easterners, the harsh, greedy, evil Easterlings of Harad that make pacts with the evil overlord (Edit: nevermind, it was never explicitly written that they are evil). Then there's the incredibly fair and white Elves and tall noble Men of the West. *Sigh* I don't know if Tolkien is quite as notable for racist prejudices, though. We don't even have an article on the guy. Nullahnung (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Tolkien was a bit of a mixed bag on the matter. You can't say that for Lewis. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

What the fuck was that about?[edit]

Blocking a user for an hour because you disagree with his good-faith edits? Go re-read the instructions and stop acting like a fucking newbie. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 00:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

"I'd expect that a wiki that prides itself on being 'rational' doesn't try to use death tolls as an argument against communism. That's just intellectually dishonest."
Pray tell, how is that part of a "good-faith" edit? Because they will be reverted. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It's a criticism in an edit comment. Criticisms in edit comments can be in good faith. Please, do tell me what about that is worth blocking someone who cannot unblock themselves. Please do tell me what specific part of the guidelines that user violated to earn a block. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 01:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)