User talk:Osaka Sun/Archive 4

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I nominated you for the board of trustees. You can accept it, decline it, ignore it, whatever you want, but I think you're a helpful user so I nominated you. That's all. ClothCoat (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with data from NYU and the U. of Maryland?[edit]

Why do you believe that the Rand Corporation is more reliable than academia? PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

My problem is not with the data itself.
  • The first quote (on the UM study) is from Ben Swann, who believed there was a media bias against Ron Paul (after his infamous newsletters were revealed) and that Sandy Hook involved more than a lone shooter.
  • The NYU research, on the other hand, was in collaboration with Mother Jones; regardless of its accuracy, having the magazine cited in an article whose intention is to convince conservatives why they're wrong on the War on Terror is equivalent to having Paul Krugman trying to get libertarians to take economics seriously. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This reversion of yours.[edit]

With no explanation, here you removed relevant information that neatly summarized some of the important points about the article and re-inserted some terribly clumsy writing. Why? TeenageWasteland (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

...and then someone who is apparently you proceeded to, as an IP, make sensible edits to the same prose that was removed minutes earlier. The internet is a weird place. TeenageWasteland (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
On second read, you're right. My bad. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You have to use Google translate to read French and you want me to take you seriously when you write about Canada?[edit]

Laughable. TeenageWasteland (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

;) Osaka Sun (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop it.[edit]

Blocks like that aren't helping. Cut it out. PsyGremlinSprich! 20:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Is that how RW rolls now?[edit]

Grant undid the protection on Putin as I was doing the same thing, with an edit comment about how if one questionable edit requires shutting down an article, maybe RW needs to grow a fuckin' pair. He put it in more polite terms than that, because he is a better man than I. TeenageWasteland (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Social democracy in the US[edit]

Please allow me to clarify. I didn't mean that people against instituting social democracy were making claims about racial heterogeneity making it untenable; you're right- that's rather uncommon among conservatives, or at least among the conservative wing of the pundit/figurehead/politician class. What I meant was that some progressives (mainly progressives with an a somewhat ahistorical view of the US/world, in my very biased opinion) claim that racial heterogeneity has on it's own has been a barrier to the realization of social democracy within the United States. I hear progressives saying that all the time, though I have rarely heard progressive wing of the pundit/figurehead/politician class make that claim. Am I making sense? Rand0 (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Your linking behaviour[edit]

A large portion of your activity on the wiki is adding wikilinks to articles. In some cases, the links are justified and indeed, necessary, but in others it turns into gratuitous over-linking. One of the dangers of adding links to everything possible is that the target of the link is not necessarily relevant to the linking article. Case in point, "POW" used to be a redirect to POW-MIA, a specific conspiracy theory, and you have repeatedly used it as a link to generic "prisoners of war". This indicates that you don't actually pay attention to what you link to - if the link is blue, it goes. Which is... not very constructive.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Overlinking is really offputting for readers. Knock it off please. Scream!! (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Osaka Sun. How is this old news? Rand0 (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It's already on here --A Real Libertarian (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, right. I forgot about the other WIGOs. Rand0 (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Congress Global Warming Deniers[edit]

I am pretty sure the websites intent is to contact the congressmen, hence the twitter accounts. I don't understand why you made it no longer visible in the article. -- Corpse in the bed (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, it's from Organizing for Action, the President's main campaigning arm. Is there a similar list of Congresspersons on the web? Because the goal is to prevent wingnuts from claiming a "politicization of science." Osaka Sun (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
This doesn't have twitter accounts and unfortunately I think everyone on this list is a republican, but how is this source? — Corpse in the bed (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
This says that there are no deniers in congress that are part of the democratic party [1]. — Corpse in the bed (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd say ThinkProgress is fine. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The Economist[edit]

On the history for the economist you wrote "I believe we mentioned their failure of predicting Sweden's collapse in the social democracy article. And you're being a bit too harsh - if they're wrong they'll begrudgingly admit it." Interestingly what angered me most was that after making their horrible predictions they had the balls to write this article (read most of it to know what the problem is). They really are the epitome of Very Serious People. But I still support your revisions, makes the page cleaner just a heads up. ClothCoat (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Who was the idiot?[edit]

Who do you think? --A Real Libertarian (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do you remove dates from sources in refs?[edit]

Such as here? --ZooGuard (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


WHY DO YOU EDIT, LOG OUT, AND THEN EDIT AGAIN AS A BON??? WHY?!?!? Father Vivian O'Blivion talkModerator 03:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Speak to Sophie, and quit it with the all caps. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Sophie hasn't been onsite since the Facebook incident. What does she have to do with your editing pattern? ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps this will help. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping the Marx quote.[edit]

I'll remember to check the entire article next time, thanks for keeping it. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


I have removed you from the Vandal Bin. In exchange, please listen to the things people say about your editing patterns.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You do know I asked to be placed in the Vandal Bin, right? Osaka Sun (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Ayn Rand[edit]

You've been told off for this above. Why did you revert *all* my edits? Why remove the quote comparing her to LRH for example? It wasn't in the predecessor section.

The undo button is supposed to be mainly for vandalism. -Albannach (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

FRB vs NBER[edit]

The NBER (you know, the guys who by law determine when a recession officially begins and ends) say the CRA played a major role in the 2008 mortgage meltdown. The Federal Reserve, as everyone knows, is extremely image conscious and paranoid of conspiracy theories-that's why they got involved in the CRA and seek to defend it. nobsOne who's been there. 19:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

One step ahead of you: If you look at the UNC report I cited, the Agarwal et al. paper has been highly critiqued already.
"[The Federal Reserve is] paranoid of conspiracy theories - that's why they got involved in the CRA and seek to defend it." So the Federal Reserve is engaging in a cover-up to prevent paranoia about a cover-up? Osaka Sun (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
No, the private sector owned Federal Reserve agrees to oversee and administer a public sector welfare program--somewhat outside their purview and mandate--to shore up it's image among the poor, the oppressed, the downtrodden. The IMF does something similar, performs a function that the World Bank already does and was created for, that is make loans to depressed, needy countries, in addition to merely keeping account of who owes who. nobsOne who's been there. 20:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
"To shore up it's image among the poor, the oppressed, the downtrodden." You still haven't given me evidence of a conspiracy other than your own words and a conflicting working paper from a think tank that is deeply intertwined with the agency you're accusing. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Huh? The link you originally provide is a CYA piece in the midst of the crisis; my Agarwal paper provides the empirical evidence your Kroszner speech asks for. On the same subject, specifically, it was the Federal Reserves' revisions to Regulation Y to implement CRA -- two years prior to the repeal of Glass-Steagall -- that caused President Clinton to remark repeal of Glass-Steagall only formalized changes which had already taken place. nobsOne who's been there. 22:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You're not reading the extent of the revisions correctly. At all.
I emphasized Kroszner's speech (and not Yellen's, for example), because he's as Chicago as you can get. If you're going to dismiss the Bhutta/Canner data behind it as "CYA" I find no further reason to further this discussion. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The art of the artful dodge; ok, let's be clear on this, we're discussing two things simultaneously. (1) CRA impact, or lack thereof, on the subprime mess, and (2) impact of repeal of Glass-Steagall on subprime mess. The 1997 revisions to Federal Reserve Board Regulation Y was wholly prompted by the 1993 Amendments to CRA, and indirectly cited by President Clinton as "the changes that had already taken place" which repeal of Glass-Steagall only ratified. Your cites here make no reference to the revisions of FRB Regulation Y. I will however review the material you provide over the coming days. nobs"It all depends what Isil is" 20:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
"The art of the artful dodge" Sigh. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine[edit] Typhoon (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

And about Crimea: Kindly do some research before you go around calling people "crazy". You know what's really crazy? To believe that Putin could occupy Crimea so fast and easily without planning it long before Yanukovich's fall.Typhoon (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Duh? Every government has plans for war scenarios that may never actually occur, up to the point, in Russia's case, of planting separatists in the Donbass years before the fact (in the event of another colour revolution). I don't disagree with you on that.
The issue I'm having is the (apparently popular) argument that this was Putin's ideal outcome for Ukraine from the start, and your use of the 2008 quote of him denying the reality of Ukrainian independence as proof of it. The article goes quite a bit into explaining why Euromaidan has become an existential crisis for his regime. Osaka Sun (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Free trade[edit]

Your behavior as regards the free trade article is causing me to lose respect for you rapidly. It's not enough to make hasty, dramatic edits on the mainspace; please use the talk page to enumerate and elaborate on your concerns as well. Otherwise, other folks will simply reverse your edits and ignore you. Also, calling other sincere editors' work "aweful" does not help us work together better, methinks. Rand0 (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Where did I say "aweful"? Osaka Sun (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The only response you have for me is about how I misspelled a word? Rand0 (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
"'Free trade' is often used as a guise for two or more countries' governments to impose really bad economic, social, and environmental policy upon their respective populations through treaties having nothing to do with actual free trade. The most obvious example of this in North America is NAFTA."
I dare you to send this to your nearest economics professor. Here's one. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Please repost that on the article's talk page. I will be more than happy to discuss this there. Rand0 (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


Osaka Sun bruh, why did you rollback all the Hitler stuff on the Gandhi page?

It's still there; just cut it down to a few less sentences. I hate using "context is key" to address someone's short-lived defence of a dictator (let alone Hitler). Osaka Sun (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh thanks bae! BlackProg (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Referencing in Great Depression[edit]

When I said a reference would be helpful, I was hoping for something to be put in the actual text. Links in the edit summary don't really help future readers verify our facts. I've put in a reference to the state-by-state voting figures which supports the claim.--The General talk to me 16:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Question about journalism[edit]

So I heard you majored in journalism, so I thought I'd ask whether you consider this to be plausible:

I have my own doubts about this, not the least of which is that games journalism was never supposed to work like other types anyways, but I just want to know if this story is plausible. Nullahnung (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know, I've never worked at Reuters, and the details of their white-labeling operations are somewhat limited. But there are multiple tidbits in these comments that should make alarm bells go off:
  • "I work for Reuters. I'm a journalist in the media business." (Redundant much?)
  • "The source and its organization has to score at least a 60 out of 100 for it to be considered fair and unbiased." (60% would seem too low for a pass on 'journalistic integrity.')
  • "NONE of the gaming publications scored higher than a 15. For reference, the National Enquirer scored a 38 and the MSNBC blogosphere scored 44." (The National Enquirer is more credible than gaming journalism? Plus, does MSNBC even have a blogosphere?)
  • "0% of staff held journalism degree" (Oh come on. Also, only half of all professional journalists in the US have communications-related degrees, so this is some faulty criteria to begin with.)
  • "No real editing process" (Define "real editing process." Every news outlet requires some sort of editorial staff hierarchy.)
  • "No accountability" (Define "accountability." Apart from being subject to civil or criminal law, there's not much else than voluntary self-regulation in the form of ombudsmen and press councils. Or declining ad revenues.)
  • "I sat in a conference and reviewed some proposals [back in 2008]...We keep these results on file, but I don't have access to them. I'm pretty sure you can request the checklist and see the's a very basic procedure...we don't give it much thought." (Convenient.)
And this: "Other [reputable] journals use different grading scales" Reuters is a wire. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for elaborating! Nullahnung (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

My god[edit]

I'm so glad I watched BBC for this, a good long while of a UKIP guy going on and on about how UKIP is the true good party and the least racist of the three main--Miekal 02:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

UKIP has thankfully been isolated throughout this entire process. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Watching somebody, right after he was finished talking, call it 5 minutes of bullshit was great. Tbh, i actually care way more about this than i did the 2012 election.--Miekal 02:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
"Yes Campaign supporters"--Miekal 03:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I was looking forward to them having to actually deal with making a better british flag--Miekal 05:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't so optimistic about that. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Question about your editing[edit]

Why did you replace the reference for "VespaGuy"'s words here from the original source to a io9 article quoting them and using the same link as a reference?--ZooGuard (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Just additional context. Is that a problem? Osaka Sun (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Amazing, s/he bothered to reply this time.--Albannach (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)