User talk:Sprocket J Cogswell/Archive2

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

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)

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)

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}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

The article's talk page is the place for this discussion. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

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?--^Mikal_lakiM 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)

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)

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 VOX^HUMANA 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)

OK no prob. I'm buried in text files offline and am only giving cursory attention to what you guys are doing. Just want you to know that if I ever screw up something you've done, I apologise in advance. VOX^HUMANA 03:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

Prototype theory

Thanks for starting that page. I'll try to look over or add a bit more when I get the chance. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping you could turn some of your attention to it, and make it a bit more respectable. I'm trying to think of ways to bring it more in line with the mission. Sprocket J Cogswell 19:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sysopship

Thanks so much! Just to make this clear are you saying that my contributions increase my chances of being nominated. If so, how soon do you think I could become a Sysop? (Again, I'm not trying to look impatient, but am merely excited). Leoesb1032 (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying that it will be better for you to focus on making the kind of constructive edits which will make it easier for someone to be comfortable changing your user rights. Some of what you've already done makes it seem like you are still getting used to the place. Give it time. I can't say how long that might be. RationalWiki sysopship is more correctly viewed as an ability to do the chores, not so much as a set of awesome powerz. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyone you suggest going to to talk about nomination? Leoesb1032 (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really. There are plenty of eyes on site activity, and good efforts will get noticed. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question? How long did it take you to become a Sysop after joining? Leoesb1032 (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Every time you ask you are putting it back another 2 weeks. By my count you will be eligible to be a sysop in 6 weeks time, but if you keep this up it could be months away. Perhaps if you made some actual productive edits to the site you might get some time off for good behaviour. --Damo^Hi 01:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Damo's approach seems like a sensible one. I can't remember how long I lurked before joining. (Yes, I know that's not the question you asked.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It's okay, I won't say anything else because I don't want people like Damo to dock me back more! Thanks though. Leoesb1032 (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I remember the bleak days before receiving my Sysop credit card - back then I had to go to the normal airport lounges like all of the other peasants. Now I only use the first class lounges, as befits my status - I just flash my sysop card to the concierge to get my free bottle of Krug ('86 of course). The free monthly case of cuban cigars and premium snus comes in handy when I have my bi-monthly sysop scotch and cigar night in the club quarters. Naturally not everyone is talented enough to work their way to sysop, but if you work hard enough then I hope to see you at one of our annual track meets (in the free Bentley you get as a reward for gaining sysop status). Tielec01 (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Obtaining Bill Gates as principal sponsor of the site was the smartest thing we ever did, that's for damn sure. Damo^Hi 02:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Rats! I got my ticket before that acquisition, and must content myself with a much-repaired Jaguar. You guys don't know how cushy you've got it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

--Mercian (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Think nothing of it. I've reached an age where I enjoy feeling useful. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Logical Fallacy

I would like to know why exactly my edit on Logical fallacies was reverted. Two fallacies were added: Bulverism and Argumentum ad lapidem . Thanks. ^{— Unsigned, by: AstralEtheric / talk / contribs}

Why are you asking me? The history seems to show that reversion as something you did. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ventilation

Hey, I appreciate the calm down block. I'm not too pissed at him though. I think it was a bit childish for him to act like a tattle tell. The only frustrating thing is having to explain that my actions were legitimate to hide personal information. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 17:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It may have been Abraham Lincoln who recommended writing a multiple-page scathing letter to someone with whom one has issues, but never sending it. Might call it the "burn before mailing" rule. Many's the time I've opened an edit window, shaken my fist at the sky, and typed a lugubrious vitriolic screed, hovered over the "Save page" button without clicking, and then gone back to my watchlist, or recent changes, or wherever.

I always ask myself if the wiki really needs to see my 2¢ worth before pulling the trigger. Sometimes I just don't give a shit and save the change anyway, but those occasions are becoming fewer. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That's good advice. I've been realizing what you say more lately. There are some pretty blatant affronts such as PowderSmokeAndLeather posting triggering insults about going to a social skills class or Hipocrite acting like the rape and murder of millions of Soviet women is a joke for him use against me, where I feel like letting them have it, but then realize that they'll only see themselves as victims if I say anything, and I don't think the wiki wants to hear me talk about German atrocities again.

I've learned that I should probably just let things go and let people be idiots. If PowderSmokeAndLeather thinks I'm some spazzer, what is it going to do for me to try to correct him? –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 17:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, he and Nutty can seem abrasive at times. On balance, I think they are both assets to RW, so it's useful to practise working around that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm abrasive because I care and have a lot of skin in this game but have nearly lost confidence because of RW's inability to deal with people like IE and Brxbrx. 17:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No blame implied— in my eyeball-space experience, collaborative ventures always have to deal with such a variety of inputs. Kindly keep up the good work! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I realize Brxbrx is an ass, so I'm going to be using him as an example of what not to be like, and why I shouldn't be an ass. I like Nutty Roux even though he can be abrasive because he has a reason for it, plus from what I've seen he seems to be fair and has realized that even though I've been an ass on passionate issues, I'm trying to do the right thing. I've given up my crusade against trying to convince users of Nazi sympathetic myths; it goes nowhere and makes me look like an ass. I resent people for continuing to spew Nazi apologist BS in the face of evidence, but I'm going to let it go given that it goes nowhere and only causes trouble. There are plenty of other people I can convince who won't be stubborn about it. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 18:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with Bricks, nor with you, for that matter. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have a problem with him either, but I do realize he can be a bit eccentric at times. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 18:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Spambots

Just out of curiosity, any particular reason you're replacing spambot pages rather than just deleting them outright? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 06:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Because it can be fun to paste a can of spam over a spambot! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw the reckless one do it that way. I don't know what his reasoning is, but it seemed like a good idea. Lately I've also gotten away from blocking them. As he says, it's fun, and it doesn't take a sysop to replace an offending user page's content with {{spam}}. In case the name is re-used anywhere else on the net, then a search for it may bring up RW's naming them as a spambot. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

word definition

Hi, Could you please help me to understand why my wording was not proper in the FLDS article? You edited out "comprised of" and I'm unclear what's wrong with it. Seeking to understand, thanks muchly. :p (PS Quite sincere in this, I really do want to learn why this usage is not correct) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/comprised Refugee^{talk page} 11:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It is like a mild case of quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur, using a word with roots in a Romance language, compounded by using it in the opposite sense of its meaning. "Comprise" pretty much means "include," so saying, "the largest is comprised of the conjoining towns of Hilldale... and Colorado City" is equivalent to saying "the largest is included of the conjoining towns ..." which sounds bass-ackward, if you will forgive my rough English.

"the largest comprises the conjoining towns" works perfectly well, but I prefer to avoid the word altogether. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Darn, I thought if I read this explanation again today, I might understand it better... nope, not happening... brain blockage I guess (or limited capacity, more likely). The dictionary definition says: "com·prise: To consist of; be composed of: "The French got ... French Equatorial Africa, comprising several territories" ..." So if the FLDS community consists of the two towns, wouldn't the usage be correct? But it's ok, lets just leave it as you put it, because I believe you know what you are talking about. I appreciate the response and thanks for the detailed explanation, sorry I couldn't quite comprehend. :-) Refugee^{talk page} 00:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, in case you were wondering, my user talk page edit was not directed at you, I had a bit of a scuffle at the FGM article awhile ago, I was thinking of that... you are still on my "good list" :p not that you probably care anyway, and it's not actually important... ok, done rambling, I will get off your talk page now. Refugee^{talk page} 01:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Now I am confused, but pleasantly so, I think? Be well, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified. I made a comment on my own user page, and wanted to make sure you didn't think it was directed at you.. something about biting someone's arm off or something. that's all... Refugee^{talk page} 07:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK, no problem. Back to comprise/compose... the parts compose the whole, the whole comprises the parts, if that helps. Most times when someone says "comprised of" it would be better to say "composed of" or something similar. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. :-) I learn new things everyday. (Hopefully most of it is retained, but I can't promise.) Refugee^{talk page} 20:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like you had quite a night

I mean, what the hell dude? Zero (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Some monkey-spanker was lighting up proxies left and right, about three minutes between episodes. Mrs. Cogswell was quietly crocheting an afghan, and I was quietly blocking and reverting while looking in on a couple other forums in between times. All in all, it was a tranquil evening. I was happy when Bob and the spiky punk showed up to relieve me. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Phatic expressions

I learned a new term today, thanks!

I haven't witnessed 'preaching to the choir' being a phatic expression, but I will trust your experience. Nullahnung (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't made an exhaustive survey ;) but the times I've seen people told they were preaching to the choir, it was with the connotation of "right you are, pal, I agree with you." Maybe a gentle prod to move the discussion along, but never with the snide "thanks, Captain Obvious" subtext. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Personally, I often see it used to signify that nothing new is being added ("Isn't that just preaching to the choir, though?") or sometimes people will call themselves out on it ("I realize that I'm preaching to the choir, and I'm sorry."). Nullahnung (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Quantum Consciousness

I applaud you for your patience. This is the third time I've seen this exact same discussion put forth, and I'm frankly tired of explaining things over and over again. How on earth do you manage? - Grant (Talk) 21:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

In my checkered on-again-off-again university experience, I spent some time in a liberal arts program taking courses in anthropology, ethnomusicology, and (shudder) philosophy. My online experience with those who proclaim philosophical expertise is consistent with the impressions I formed of philo TA's: somewhat articulate, but a bit disconnected from the pragmatic reality as I have experienced it. I suppose I am still trying to make sense of their point of view, as bass-ackwards as it sometimes seems to me. Call it my study of applied humanities, if you will.

I should probably just back off and go quiet, but if I have a character flaw, it is the inability to abstain from wondering why the guy on the gold chair in the fancy hat is butt naked and barefoot. HTH, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Heh, well said. My university experience has been entirely in physics, with some minor dabbling in psychology on the side. When I see someone making scientific conclusions based on some philosophical argument, it makes me cringe. The way some of these folks approach science distresses me, and if some of these arguments were brought up to the physics community as a whole, some of these BoNs would be laughed out of the room.

My former graduate supervisor was a very wealthy and influential man who had earned a significant amount of respect in his field (subsequently my field as well). If he read the arguments advanced by these BoNs, I doubt he would even bother taking the time to try to get them to explain. - Grant (Talk) 22:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Oops

Seems like I had the same idea about protecting the Noah's Ark animals article, but somehow screwed up and removed your protection. Seems I kinda suck at this tool. Uh, halp? :p Octo8 (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem, just put the protection back on. Or not, it shouldn't be a big deal unless our friend from Orlando wants to keep it up for a while. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, somehow it didn't seem to work on my first try at reprotection. Or something. Well good to know I didn't screw up, heh. Octo8 (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If you do feel like protecting it, selecting "Allow only autoconfirmed users" ought to be enough, since that will keep anonymous IP editors from poking around in the article. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - for User:Nannadeem/Grand_Ayatollah_Ali_al-Sistani

I pay thanks with salute. Nannadeem (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with you?

Your biased summary "in a sentence" of the Zeitgeist Movement is utterly idiotic, yet when I edit it you persistently revert it back to your same blatantly idiotic summary... ^{— Unsigned, by: 185.2.138.125 / talk / contribs}

If you take your concern to Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement, you might find someone who cares. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

LBJ

“” I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office--the Presidency of your country. Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.

—Lyndon B. Johnson

^{— Unsigned, by: 109.154.119.125 / talk / contribs}

That's nice. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thunderfoot Edit

The fact that this so called 'rational' wiki has allowed the absolute bile written in the 'feminism' section shows how discussions in the talk sections do nothing to help the situation. It's clear this place is dominated by over-sensitive feminazis. I did always wonder why this place was seen as the joke of the rational community. I now see why. ^{— Unsigned, by: 151.227.231.112 / talk / contribs}

and here I thought we were a manarchist bro-space. Frankly and earnestly, I don't give two shits about internet slap-fights. Use the article's talk page, or go back in the wandal bin, your choice. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 02:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Hi. I'm not around as much as I used to be but I thought that we had a policy against deleting talk page comments without good reason. Has this changed?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Restore this if you like, but I see no need to keep such moronic trolling visible. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have. Our policy is not to delete talk page comments and we also tend to respect the idea of "assume good faith". I also suspect that the author is not serious, but we can't read his mind.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia I always assume good faith. You've been here long enough to know this isn't WP. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess if "long enough" means "since we initially created the site" then, yes.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

lameness

How much of what I wrote did you actually read? Nisroch (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

All of it, and it was lame. What "support" do you offer, besides ranting on the internet? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's see. I have been a dedicated political activist for over 20 years, edited on Wikipedia for years before The Wikipedia Jews banned me for pushing a pro-Palestinian POV (supposedly), have contributed to the legal defense of Lelyn Brandon and other political prisoners, have formed several political parties, written for a number of Celticist newsletters, was the leader of the US chapter of the Lorraine Prihey Society for years and even named my oldest daughter after Ulrike Meinhof. What more do you want? Clythne of Yllbaton (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be truly a legend in your own mind. Now go away, and do not darken my talk page again. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)