User talk:Owlman/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 23 July 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

Autopatrolled

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound POWER — and these external tools:

• Google Scholar Button ^{(Chrome, Firefox)} searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
• web.archive.org and archive.is can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again! FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 00:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Demotion

You've been demoted to sysop due to your tireless patrolling against Wandalism and general chicanery. Bad luck, dear sir. Read this guide for more details on your new, near unlimited, powers. Also, your userpage (not your user talkpage) is your property. You can delete, edit, post dicks or whatever to your hearts content. So you can simply blank the page of that little bit of Wandalism if you wish (or not). Tielec01 (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for fixing some spelling errors I made in the Kurdistan article. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I thought it was an interesting article since I also have some interest in the Kurdish culture.--Owlman (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Although I'm not sure it will do any good considering all parties are autoconfirmed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I see well I will change that real quick.--Owlman (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You did it just as I was going to respond to Player 03.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Revert

You reverted my change to the "Friend Argument" page and I'd like to know why. 62.31.209.216 (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Well I reverted it because I disagree with your argument. The idea of #NotYourShield, discounting the possibility of sockpuppetry, is that there are all these minorities supporting us so we can't possibly be bigots. This is what Fox News does whenever they talk about race. They will bring an African American on the show to say heinous things about African Americans in order to say, "Because he is black he can't be racist therefore nothing we say is racist."--Owlman (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding it. It's about the members of the movement themselves being minorities, while the opposition were claiming they were persons of privilege. They didn't take pictures of their friends and then say #NotYourShield, they took pictures of themselves and said "we're not all cis white men". This is why it's got nothing to do with the friend argument. I agree, the friend argument is terrible. I also think GamerGate is an immature group of people with a lot of corruption. However, this section is vindictive and straight up incorrect. 62.31.209.216 (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I see your point and on second thought it may be a better example of tokenism. If you want to remove it I would confront the talk page, which it appears you did. I haven't been here long enough, but I assume you can make your change. I would suggest moving it to tokenism btw.--Owlman (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Moved over there with certain levels of misinformation cleared up. I'll add sources at a later time. Thanks for being helpful. 62.31.209.216 (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sam Harris

You reverted my edit of the page. However, someone higher on the hierarchy should take action on the article. I'm passing that mission to you since you reverted the edit. That section is outrageous and should be removed. (I) It portraits Sam Harris as a bigot. Whether he is or isn't is not a matter of consensus in the skeptic community, on the contrary. (II) It does so in a malicious and irrational way, creating and judging a case. (III) It was defended before on the basis of "Snarky point of view" which does not apply: it refers to a person and it is not a consensus in the community. (IV) It has been held up there by a hand-of-iron of other users, not by arguments of any sort (refer to the talk page).

I should also point out that I have nothing against the citations, you can leave them all. 89.85.127.143 (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

that white devine thing u vandal binned

I haven't used my holy sysop powers [genuflect] yet but had been about to block that user after reading the directions as to how to go about that. But you had vandal binned him before I went to actually execute. Would it have been wrong for me to block him if I'd been first?---Mona- (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It would not have been wrong Mona. In fact, the nasty turd was blocked before vandal binning anyway. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, at least it finally dragged me to the sysop guidelines and tools pages. Doing anything remotely resembling moderating a site is my idea of hell, but I realize it's kind of a group responsibility here.---Mona- (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Mona, vandalbinning is a permanent limitation while a block only lasts only as long as the sysop puts.--Owlman (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Double redirects don't work ;-)

You created New liberalism and New liberals, both redirecting to Liberalism; but Liberalism is a redirect to Liberal (always has been). The MediaWiki software doesn't follow double redirects, so people are presented with only a link. I didn't fix it so you can see the problem in action ;-) Could you fix it please? Thanks! Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

On a similar note you just created Photon Belt as a redirect to itself. I assume you meant to point it at Photon belt so I fixed it. Capitalization matters except for the first letter. You might want to see Help:Redirects and the MediaWiki manual. --Ymir (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Well shit I can't believe I did that again. Anyways thanks.--Owlman (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Collingwood

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20160101000000&limit=05&type=block:

"Well that seems to have been the reason name was changed to Collingwood."

Since you appear clueless with regards to recent incidents, I'll provide context. This is the reason they changed the account's name to "Collingwood":

"I am open that I am Vordrak / Sam Smith / Matthew Hopkins. However I tend not to put my middle name C_________d online to avoid identity theft. This has been obtained by non-casual record search and I ask you to remove and (oversight) it."

Gooniepunk blocked him on sight despite Vordrak not having done a single nasty thing at the time of the block, which resulted (key word: resulted; RationalWiki drew first blood) in Vordrak publishing a few blog entries about RationalWiki.

In one of these blog entry, Vordrak talks about Gooniepunk and self-professed pedophile Shouniaisha ("Shouniaisha" is Japanese for "pedophile" despite Speakeasy's claims to the contrary). Gooniepunk couldn't handle the heat and got out of the kitchen, which caused RationalWiki users to become upset.

One of those upset individuals decided to use the "SecretAgentoftheMods" account to rename "Shouniaisha" account to "Collingwood" precisely to get back at Vordrak for Gooniepunk's departure. The "SecretAgentoftheMods" account was used a few times before in order to suppress revisions and log entries. The account was created and given advanced privileges late on December 23rd, but Gooniepunk's Noisebot covered up those logs. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

"key word: resulted; RationalWiki drew first blood" Are you really gonna play the childish "They started it!" guilt game? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:35, 31 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

I'm just saying that RationalWiki had an opportunity to deal with Vordrak's concerns in a reasonable manner but decided to make a enemy out of someone who wasn't causing any trouble instead. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I see. Well I will probably stay out of this since it wasn't my idea to change the username to Collingwood. So had presumed that the name was changed because of possible Islamophobia, but I was mistaken.--Owlman (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Iran

You didn't vote your entry to What is going on in the world? up or down. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Is that a norm because I tend to not vote on my entries since I was the one to put it there. I have always seen the voting system as community approval for a type of story.--Owlman (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt if there's a norm. I suppose it's up to the individual.Proxima Centauri (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Uk-whatever

The old name of the account is the one DG suggested was a sock of michaeldsuarez, hence it's appropriate for mds's comment to go on that talk page (modulo mds actually talking to themself, of course, if it is a sock). Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well DG was suggesting it of being a sock, but assumed michael was more likely the sock. Regardless the coop case isn't even about him it is about michael being a concern troll.--Owlman (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Even so, it's not going to do any harm to let mds notify Uk-whatever, just in case Uk-whatever wants to comment. mds is being as overblown as ever in the phrasing, but that just makes them look bad. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well my main reasoning is that mds has been concern trolling Uk-whatever since he first got here and regardless of the possibility that he is a sock we still need to prevent him from harassing a user who doesn't frequent the site.--Owlman (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"[…] since he first got here"? Are you rewriting history? I've been here since September 2009, years before Shouniaisha joined, and Shouniaisha joined in mid-November, and I didn't interact with Shouniaisha until late December. Also, telling Shouniaisha about what Gerard thinks about him isn't harassment or trolling. If Gerard didn't want such comments in Shouniaisha's mind, then Gerard shouldn't have made the comments. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well my mistake I am basing my accusations on the details from the coop case.--Owlman (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Also I haven't been a user that long so I haven't seen you before.--Owlman (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Given that Gerard is now proposing to have Shouniaisha / Ukuphendukela banned, I suggest that you leave my messages to Ukuphendukela in place. Whether you like it or not, it's in Ukuphendukela's interests to become involved in the discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I have left it since it was last restored, but now that this user has been coop I have no reason to fight this.--Owlman (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

What the fuck is your problem, bitch?

What in the hell did I do to rub you the wrong way. Was Calhoun's opposition to the Mexican war a fiction? Did he not do the things I say he did? Burkean (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The only thing I removed was a quote you added. I don't see anything about John C Calhoun's opposition to the Mexican-American War.--Owlman (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Too bad you didn't check the quote. It comes from a speech he made in January 1848. Google it and you'll find it retrieved from the University of Indiana archives. You have no right to bullshit me and delete accurate and easily verified quotes. If this is your way of demonstrating that liberals actually do care about free speech, then you're doing it wrong. Burkean (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If this is your way of demonstrating that conservatives actually do know what free speech is, then you're doing it wrong.Petey Plane (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

First off, I didn't deny you free speech here because you were allowed to post that comment and if someone disagrees with that is their speech as well; if you are editing on a wiki and then someone reverts then speech has been expressed. Secondly, there is no context to your quote because no one has put any information about his opposition to the Mexican-American war; why don't you do that before coming here to bitch about some hero of yours.--Owlman (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Your atheism war

You reverted a lot of dumb edits and blocked/binned some BoNs. That's fine, but there's a lazier way. Try temporarily changing page permissions so that only autoconfirmed folks can edit a page. That'd shut down the BoNs and new vandalism-prone named editors. MarmotHead (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I am aware that I can protect the page, but this BoN has been a recurring vandal and would have just moved to a different page. I thought that fighting them until they got bored would work better.--Owlman (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

How would you fill in the blank?

The only good Red is a ____ Red. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Living ;)--Owlman (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Satisfactory, for now. Salutations. Коммунизм 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Haaretz paywalled stuff

Could you use free articles, no-one's gonna pay to just read an article.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 09:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC) 09:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Gazacat

I've undone your edit http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laura_Knight_Jadczyk&diff=next&oldid=1632670. It doesn't appear to be malicious. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I thought it was spam or possibly harassment, but I was wrong.--Owlman (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Given the number of new sections in the talk page, with quickly researched references, that it was some monomaniac or harrassment crossed my mind as well to be honest. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

How it has generally worked here.

Minor wandals are not war criminals. Bin them, and clean up after them with the mop. The fact that you've blocked a dozed ip addresses for the guy shows how futile your approach is. that sort of nonsense is the price we pay for having a relatively open platform. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I had been binning them, but Queex unbinned the IPs because we aren't supposed to bin IPs here so I began giving them extremely long blocks; now you are telling me I can't do that so I am stuck with a Catch 22 here.--Owlman (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Binning IPs is problematic as someone else may use the same IP and be inadvertently binned. Same with long blocks. Use a short block (eg. 3.14 hours). At the end of the day the BoN can simply unplug their modem to get a new IP so long blocks are pointless. Tielec01 (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Good point re: binning IPs. There's no Catch-22 here. Just hit the "rollback" button and move along. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I realize that binning IPs is problematic, but I didn't know what else to do. Ugh, fine I will begin removing all of them from the bin.--Owlman (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The solution for me regarding this user has been to protect the targeted pages for a day when they show up, at an autopatroll level. Better overall than banning/binning IP's (Even though I also banned). I suggest we just do that whenever this clown shows up again. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 08:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I like the idea of playing whack-a-mole every so often, but if I have to I will protect the page this user continues to vandalize.--Owlman (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Before I start removing IPs from the vandalbin should I remove the IPs that Bongolian and Pbfreespace added as well?--Owlman (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Emailing you

Doesn't appear as an option on the sidebar

FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 12:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Really? Uh... What did I screw up? I will try to fix it before the designated time.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC) 13:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Apparently it was you, who freed me from the bin. For that, many thanks. But I have a feeling, that this minor edit war was a deliberate provocation — and no, I'm usually not given to believing in conspiracy theories. In any case, Weaseloid fired the first shot. I think RW has had enough of me for the time being and vice versa. But, again, thanks for keeping a level head. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see the text of your message until a bit later and since then RW has been plagued with technical difficulties — I have in any case got an error message when trying to edit anything for a couple of hours. But, now that seems to be resolved, I thank you for the advice, very sound, and I will stay out of trouble. It's not like I've been looking for trouble anyway. I did give Weaseloid a piece of my mind, true enough, but that isn't a capital offense. I did manage my pages here in such a way that I could vanish without further ado, but I haven't closed anything yet. And again, thanks for understanding, whatever you may think of me personally. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a mystery

So why continue the stubborn reverting? The version you want to keep is treating Sanders' lack of popularity among black people as some unanswered question. And when you do get a clear and concise answer you revert it while complaining that it should go to Hillary's article? Sorry, but if Sanders is failing because of Hillary, then it should be mentioned why. Typhoon (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because the confusion among his supporters is irrelevant. We haven't added a section on the confusion Hillary supporters have over why they don't have young supporters; I didn't notice the the handwaving of his lose in the South, but I am removing it. The statements his supporters are also useless because adding them creates a bloated page; we shouldn't add the statements of Trump supporters unlrpess he supports thise statements.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC) 19:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Bloated page? It's just one short paragraph. Avenger Pizzameister has been bloating the page with barely hidden Bernie fanboyism. But that's OK? I've noticed that he's been also reverting others whenever they add anything negative about Bernie's performance. It's ridiculous what's happening in that article and I can't wait for the primaries to end for the Berniebros to go the way of Paulbots. Until then it's increasingly frustrating to do any reasonable edits. Typhoon (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

“”This outcome has clearly frustrated Sanders. He and his supporters cannot understand how his “democratic socialist” campaign is losing the black vote – and not gaining more traction with his attack on the 1990s, when even the Clintons have repudiated parts of their record in backing a tough-on-crime bill many blame for furthering the epidemic of mass incarceration. But Hillary Clinton’s support among African-Americans only surprises whites who caricature black politics as blindly radical, and radicals blinded with rage who unfairly blame Bill Clinton for the mass incarceration problem. The Clintons’ relationship with the African-American community has been deep and mutually beneficial, and it’s showing in the election tallies. Distorting the historical record ignores both Clintons’ warm ties to African-Americans and their impressive contributions to racial reconciliation, especially in the 1990s.

—politico.com

"Negative info makes the page bloated!!1!" Typhoon (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I've looked and Bernie is still wayyy behind when it comes to black voters. So that section will remain for now. Typhoon (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

No that isn't what you are doing. You continue to add comments made by some supporters; if we were to do this with every candidate we would have bloated pages. Recently, Hillary Clinton indirectly defended the Contras and Batista and her supporters followed the red baiting; should we mentin that? Should we mention her supporters who doubt his 'Jewishness' or have whitesplained his non-white supporters?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 19:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Have those comment launched thousands of articles and editorials about her supporters? No? Then Berniebros will continue to be mentioned and criticized. (PS: nothing is preventing you from adding a section complaining about Hillary's supporters. Whether you will succeed in finding enough sources is another question). Typhoon (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess since the media hasn't covered something it must not be real or important. Also this is a common political tactic she has done since she ran against Obama.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 19:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

So that's it? It's all a media conspiracy lead by Hillary? Typhoon (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

No that isn't what I said; the campaign tactic is to spread the idea that a candidate supporters are sexist, racist, or homophobic and then give them a common name like Obama-Boys or Bernie-Bros. Now obviously every candidate has racist, sexist, and homophobic supporters, but now that the narrative is "Most liberal Senator has Supportes with Regressive Supporters" you can run tons of opinion pieces with anecedontal evidence which creates a bias that Sanders is regressive since he is associated with these vocal characters.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 19:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That's nice, but I don't like this absurd insistence on rejecting verified sourced in favor of your echo-chamber. It's absurd that you're silencing any mention about a topic that is talked about everywhere else. I'll keep adding more and more sources with every revert you make. Typhoon (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Look, I agree that you should remove the Confederate argument when applied to his black support and you should mention his delegate deficit, but adding the Bernie-bro argument is an association fallacy and necessary because the articke already mentions he has neo-reactioonaries supporting him.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 20:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't even get why you're insisting on this particular part. Even before I first edited the article, it was already mentioning "berniebros". All I did was to expand the section about him being far behind when it came to African-American voters, and the (documented) examples of Bernie supporters lashing out at blacks for not voting for Bernie (Avenger's Pizzameisters' smearing of southern democrats as "the Confederacy" is a perfect example of this backlash from Berniebros reaching Rationalwiki.) Typhoon (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with that particular entry because it weighs the idea that Bernie Bros are numerous instead of being some vocal minority noticed because of the internet giving everyone a platform. I would equally oppose the inclusion of "Hillbots" on here page because it is irrelevant; the section itself ought to mention Bernie-bros because a lot of media outlets have covered it and we ought to dispel the notion that it is widespread or important to his character.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 20:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't do that

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Don't link to ForeignPolicy.com anymore; even with adblock the site is full of spam and apparently it's paywalled anyway, so I have no fracking clue if your links have any merit... CorruptUser (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure about the spam but I will remember to link to non-paywalled sites.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC) 05:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. :P CorruptUser (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Exodus

I find the spin quite dizzying but I want to understand at least what's going on here. I added a WIGO item for blogs, not clogs, titled:

• Another mass exodus from Freethought Blogs lead to a new Social Justice Atheist blog hub called "the Orbit".

How nice of me! This doesn't even contain a μ of crititicism. Was it missing praise and lack of devout worship of my part? Anyway, you comically changed it into...

• Freethought Blogs partners with a new Social Justice Atheist blog hub called "the Orbit".

I laughed. Expecially your Ultra Propaganda Version already makes the rounds. Note how my text was merely factual. And you also commented in the log ..

• There is no conspiracy like Aneris's conspiracies.

Fantastic, even more over the top. Is there some misunderstanding in some word? What exactly is the "conspiracy"? Perhaps you are a denialist without knowing it? With that long explanation I hope to learn what's wrong with you and others on this site. ~ Aneris ✻ 19:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You labeled it as a mass exodus when they appears to be a new blog that happens to be in a partnership with FtB; I could not find a source that stated people had left FtB in order to make this blog. I consider you wording to be "conspiratorial" because it is basically stating that the Orbit was created over some sort of dispute when it appears to me to be a spinoff. On another note I have never read FtB and I am unaware of anyone who writes there outside of those authors mentioned on this wiki.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC) 19:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That's very interesting. You detect finest problems where there are none, and I see a wiki filled with outright fabrications cut from wholecloth in countless articles (which are uncorrectable). That's no exaggeration. Your objection doesn't even make sense. Since when do blogging networks create spin-offs? What does it even mean? The facts are: this is the second exodus. The previous was recent, and saw a loss of most traffic beside Myers as three notable people went away (Brayton, Benson and Aron Ra). This time 8+ people from ~30 left, and again, they were among the more known and more well-connected ones. And if people were totally happy, they wouldn't move out and do their own blog network thing, which they did. That doesn't mean they had an argument, or hate each other now. However, there is of course more to it. I now have the feeling the Harry Potter Wiki is more in touch with reality than the RationalWiki. ~ Aneris ✻ 20:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well then why not revert?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC) 21:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to understand the situation :) Other than that, reverts always seem to lead to edit warring. ~ Aneris ✻ 13:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You know, instead of spreading conspiratorial tripe, you could just read what the founders of the orbit are saying about it: [1], for example. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 14:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Vandalbinning

If a user has been blocked for three months, they really don't need to be binned. It's not as if they're going to use that account afterwards.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking him, was kind of getting sick of rollbacking all his vandalism. Ghost (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, for cleaning all that up. Just one question, what is the reason behind all this trolling and posting of said image ? Ghost (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't know, but if it is the same or an associate of the BoN that posted the T-Mobile number than he hates the wiki for whatever reason and is mentally ill.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC) 06:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Also why were you desysoped?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC) 06:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, drunk editing and being a cunt. Ghost (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I will give you that ability for now; do you intend to archive your talkpage?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC) 07:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

To answer your question, I have been doing this for years, it's fun, I hate this wiki, and the picture is of some girl who is friends with my fiance, who I was mad at for a while but I forgave her. It's just funny to see your reactions to me posting the links and her information. And yes I am mentally ill. To Answer Your Question (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

See I don't actually give a shit why you hate this wiki.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC) 07:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Based on the conversation above, I believe you blocked the wrong IP by mistake (28.20.238.133). I received a notice a short time ago that you blocked me for doxxing, for I think 3.14 months. Given the conversation above, I believe you must have made an error. I have not posted any images, have not done anything that could even remotely be interpreted as trolling (at worst, some mild snark, well within RW bounds), nobody has been rolling back any contributions of mine, and certainly haven't posted anybody's phone number. (Between being transgender — transgender people are all too often targeted for doxxing — and having a long history of working in inpatient mental health, I place an enormous value on confidentiality, and loathe doxxers intensely; an unfounded accusation of doxxing rankles immensely.) I find myself now able to answer the matter on your talk page; either you have realised your error and rescinded the block, or when my wi-fi disconnected and reconnected a couple of minutes ago I got a new IP address.^{— Unsigned, by: 24.20.238.133 / talk / contribs}

I already answered you on your talkpage. Also sign your posts. Lastly, why don't you make an account?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC) 07:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yet another round of applause for a sterling, if boring, effort in rolling back and blocking our persistent BoN Whac-A-Mole vandal. Keep up the good work! ScepticWombat (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Dog speed, son

You're doing Dog's work, son! I'm glad you are keeping that BoN spammer down so diligently. I know it's a thankless job but I just wanted to tell you that I see your activity and I think it's rad. Keep it up buddy! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You can turn the edit filters off now

I'm done messing around now, now that you know who is behind it. And you are correct in that it wasn't cool posting her picture on the wiki. DMorris, on the EIP Network ^{1 855 282 2882} 06:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Tech time!

You're a tech! Don't break anything important.

The tech support page is at TECH.

If you happen to know JavaScript, it'd be great if you could edit MediaWiki:Gadget-HotArticleRate.js to use a combination of {{bronze}}/{{silver}}/{{gold}}+{{pri}} (both on mainpage) instead of {{bronze}}/{{silver}}/{{gold}}+{{rated}} (first on mainpage, second on the talkpage). The gadget isn't widely used, so it doesn't matter if you temporarily break it. Thanks!

FuzzyCatPotato of the Rhodomontade DJs (talk/stalk) 17:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The short version

Apparently one can't take a few days off without history taking an unexpected turn — I'm reminded of Han Solo's stay in a frozen state for some reason. :-) But would you give me the short version of what this

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Chicken_coop#Pbfreespacecooped

is all about?

If you don't feel so inclined, no hard feelings. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A old Conservapedia user, DMorris2, spammed the wiki with telecom tech support numbers and so woman's dox. Pb blocked one of his proxies and asked for his dox and made a passing threat that legal action would be taken if they continued to stay. DMorris proceeded to coop Pb, which was reverted, and I cooped Pb in hopes that he would reveal himself (at the time he was still using a BoN proxy) and he was desysoped and banned. He has promised not to come back, but that remains to be seen.

TL:DR Old, angry users vandalized the wiki and was concerned about being sued. He revealed himself and then was banned.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC) 21:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I was a bit — no, more than a bit — puzzled. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC) 22:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Coop case vote.

Please vote in the coop case. I've presented evidence I believe to be clear, convinving, and final. Your say would be greatly appreciated. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see the arguments first, but I do intend to vote.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC) 04:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you is a foggot.

Just noticed a user registered as User:Owlman is a FAGGOT. I employed the enblockinator. If it's one of those RW in-joke things, or if it doesn't faze you, please to unblock. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 05:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK it isn't anyone here, but I woukd assume they were a potential vandal so you might as well keep them blocked.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 12:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC) 12:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Moskau, Moskau, wirf die Gläser an die Wand

Heads up, you posted the wrong news link in the "why Soviet refugees like Trump" WIGO Blog post. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh my goat, no!--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC) 17:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Contact you about what?

As an aside, you seriously need to do something about User:Pbfreespace3. He is way to heavy handed in his blocks, makes legal threats, sucks up to Mona the drama queen, jumps to conclusions in his accusations of peoplw being Arisboch... He's just not a good admin, and he was blocked from Wikipedia because he simply can't follow rules. Defender of the Damsels in Distress (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, you're one of the more sensible sysops here. Defender of the Damsels in Distress (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a guy who has doxxed an active user, posted pictures of user, and asked other users here to masturbate to her. That constitutes harassment, and I don't think banning obvious socks of yours is "heavy handed". If it is, well, then I suppose I'm heavy handed. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Doxed what active user? And blocking new accounts which haven't edited is heavy handed; you blocked User:Dansky and that wasn't me. Defender of the Damsels in Distress (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Mona. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh you shit too, I never doxed Mona. See? He insists that I am someone I am not. Defender of the Damsels in Distress (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

If you email me the name of your original account I will purge it of any dox; since I am a tech I can redev to where not even regular sysops will see it. I can also ask a mod to change the username if you want. I have told Pb to cool it, but if something overtly problematic happens then he will be reprimanded. Pb he doxed someone he knew which is still awful, but not what you are accusing him of.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC) 01:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

She is fully aware of what was happening (and thought it was funny) and all of those phone numbers were made up. I'll email you the name of the account. Defender of the Damsels in Distress (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you think this is funny? What you've been doing is reprehensible. Why would you act this way towards a fellow editor? What has this person done to you? Posting someone's image all over the wiki for several hours, using over a dozen sockpuppet accounts to do so, and then doing it again is ridiculous. Also, you posting terrible stuff on my user talk page and many others, which counts as harassment. I don't understand why you are still allowed to make any edits at all on this wiki. It doesn't make sense to me. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It's Rational-Wiki. You should have been around for MarcusCicero and Ex-Troll Cheerleader, who the old guard so patiently put up with. Defender of the Damsels in Distress (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I think what you did was totally uncool and I think you should leave. You are guilty of harassment. You are not welcome here. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I left. I quietly watched the chaos in the coop. I was unhappy to see things die down without the drama queens losing their mops, so I came back. And when you and Mona lise your mops, I will leave again. Defender of the Damsels in Distress (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

(EC) Wait 2 days and the results of the policy votes in the saloon bar will come into official effect. Since some of his accounts are permabanned, all his socks will be liable to inheriting said sanction. Also, the new season of Game of Thrones starts that day, another thing to look forward to. :) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:12, 22 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

Please, I have socks that you don't even know about. I'm slick enough to evade your ban if I wanted to. Defender of the Damsels in Distress (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're certainly proxy-laden enough to evade bans. The main point, though, is to stop people from making lame "but they haven't done anything wrong on this account yet!" objections. No more empowering vandals through lax enforcement. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:26, 22 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

If only you guys could just ban the whole world huh? Then you wouldn't have to put up with disagreement, or as you call it, 'harassment'. The people that built this place would (and are) cringing at what it has become. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

They actually have good readon to ban me... Believe me, this is probably the most lax wiki on the internet. Defender of the Damsels in Distress (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Though I would ageee the "founding fathers" of the wiki would not like the way they're running things now. Defender of the Damsels in Distress (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

How would they ban you when it's as simple as unplugging a modem to evade it? At worst you need to get any one of the hundreds of freely available proxy services (outside of TOR which is blocked here ensuring that anyone in an authoritarian state would never edit the wiki). I don't know how these idiots haven't worked out that banning people doesn't ever work; anyone who's been around for more than a week should understand that. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

One could also argue that, if one's behavior doesn't resemble their previous actions enough for anyone to notice, what's the difference if they get away with ban evasion? Defender of the Damsels in Distress (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyone's free to take up the mantle of 'defender of the ancient RW conventions', you know. So far, it seems hardly anyone still cares for them, though. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:41, 22 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

That's true enough; everyone left. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You know, once you move past the part of your life where most of your discussions are in the comment sections of YouTube, trying to rebut people via "logical fallacies" looks really pathetic; this is especially true when you misapply them. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Aside from calling 142 pathetic and failing to explain how they misapplied a fallacy, do you do anything but complain? ;P FuzzyCatPotato of the Puce Mouths (talk/stalk) 03:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Consider it constructive criticism; and I quite like 142, in fact I think I might have voted for them as moderator (memory fades). It's called snark FCP, and it is, allegedly, one of the calling cards of RW. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

So why are you still lurking here then?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC) 04:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I wonder why you think I comment on YouTube videos? My online discussion-activities are pretty much limited to just RW, these days. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:11, 22 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

Well, you claimed 139 used a logical fallacy -- and as an enlightened post-fallacy user, 139 can clearly see that you are one of the degenerate, weak-minded, fallacy-flinging denizens of YouTube. FuzzyCatPotato of the Rapturous Juices (talk/stalk) 04:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

email

I tried adding an email address to this account, never got the confirmation email. Defender of the Damsels in Distress (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, I had this problem at first as well. Let me create a new email so that you can post there.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC) 03:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, try emailing me at edwardjonesing@mail.com.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC) 03:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I sent you an email. Also, people can shove their blocks where the sun don't shine; I can get around them. I Can't Wait (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Iill do it when I get home.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC) 16:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Not that that article was it

But Hetalia is some modestly popular historical revisionism that's... well, pretty friendly towards the Nazis. It's maybe missional under pseudo-history pervue. Maybe. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably, but someone else should make it. I marked it as hopelessly unmissional because it had no substance.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC) 19:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

William "Bill" Binney and the NSA

Hey Owlman! I saw you added this, and I just wanted to inform you that this and this is also the case. These guys seem to have lost their minds. "We can't stop here, this is crank country!". All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Damn. Well, it floated to the top on Reddit and the reporting there can be hit or miss. I don't think he is wrong in this case but I will watch out for his name again.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC) 23:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The interesting part is that tons of people don't seem to realize that both Bill Binney and Kirk Wiebe have completely fallen off their rockers. I mean, completely. See above links - they're approaching David Icke levels of crankery, fast, since more than a year now. Mona's shock at learning this fact on those talkpages was tangible, and for good reason. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it always sucks when whistleblowers and civil advocates become massive cranks.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC) 01:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Counterpunch

They're an infowars-tier shitsite. Proof. Source. They were identified as part of the alt-net conspiracy referral network that spread disinformation about the conflict in Ukraine. If you're posting links to them you might as well post to globalresearch too, and guess what, they are both linked together. Typhoon (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand that they are cranks but they are the original source. We have sighted research done by Counterpunch before. One example is on Ayn Rand's page where they found out who was funding the Ayn Rand institute. I am sorry to tell you that cranks still do research such as The National Review debunking the fearmongering of GMOs. I will continue to insert the original source onto that page.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC) 18:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Cranks are good if the shit on people you hate? I'm gona continue removing shitty sources while reinserting the good sources that you remove. Typhoon (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

As I went to the wrong place to say already, you're reading that chart backwards. They're not a particularly credible source. They describe themselves as muckrakers(and plenty of third parties have endorsed that), but they're not linking to conspiracy sites. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

A deleted wikipedia page?

That's a new low. Typhoon (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't add it. You gave no reason for its deletion so explain to me why they deleted it since WP has different standards then us.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC) 15:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

All is explained here. I've linked this to you previously in the edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clinton_donors_in_the_Panama_Papers

I see that they deleted it for being bias which isn't of our concern.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC) 15:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You kidding? It's more than just bias. Read it whole. Typhoon (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Because you're intentionally refusing to read it, I'll summarise it for you. The deleted article violates BLP and has huge problems with facts (it's basically a huge smear article). We don't have NPOV, but we DO have BLP. Cease and desist before I alert the mods. Typhoon (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Idon't have a lot of time atm but I don't fear mod intervention.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC) 15:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you do, because all it was needed for you to remove it was for me to go to the nearest mod. Typhoon (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Well it doesn't surprise me that you ran to Gerard but you can refer to his page to see my response.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC) 17:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You know what's funny?

I'm ambivalent about Clinton and I'm not denying that she has many, many problems, such as her zealous support for Israel. But I also wasn't in coma during the 90s. I remember the absolutely ludicrous smear machine launched by the GOP against her and Bill. And in the past few months I've seen many Bernie supporters now riding the same old conspiracy machine, accusing her of stealing and murder. I've seen rational people adopting old republican attacks, just because they're mad that the majority of people voted for Hillary. I'm sorry I called you a dumbass, I've been getting increasingly frustrated for being called "not a true progressive" just because I said something positive about a person who shares 93% of political positions with Bernie. Purity tests have forever damaged the Republican party, and now there's increasing fear of the same happening to the Democrats. I share the same fear. Fear and frustration that people are no longer willing to admit that their candidate lost, and instead they retreat into conspiracies and de-legitimatizing the winner of the popular vote. Typhoon (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Look, I am no fan of Clinton and I have seen a lot of conservative sites feed off the paranoia among the Democrats. I think that the Democrats helped stack it in Clinton's favor but she was already the most powerful Democrat to have ever run. I have criticized Sanders as well but Sanders hasn't flipped on his positions and he hasn't been an executive before which, in the US, they are more visible and scrutinized more. I don't think the corruption is her fault she just knows how to "play the game"; I think Sanders is defending her when he says the system is corrupt. I still disagree with you that on some of your edit on her page but I will post the Daily Kos link even though it bastardizes that CounterPunch link.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC) 13:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/18/sorry_bernie_i_love_you_but_this_is_over_and_getting_embarrassing/

I’ve been an unapologetic shill for Bernie Sanders, writing articles, sending small donations and attending rallies, but after the recent debacle in my home state of Nevada, coupled with undeniable delegate math, it has became clear to me that Bernie cannot win the nomination. It’s sad for his supporters, like me. But what is more troubling is the heated, false and sometimes vile rage coming out of some Bernie supporters, as they grow ever more frustrated at the loss. I’ve worked hard in my own life to embrace progressive values, and the rhetoric coming from some parts of my own community reminds me of the Tea Party.

[...]

There’s too much denial, conjecture and nonsense being passed among Sanders supporters. I thought liberals were the voice of evidence and reason? My own, 22-year-old, Bernie-loving son regurgitated conservative talking points to me the other day. “Hillary and Trump are no different,” he said. This is the wet dream of the Trump campaign, to conflate Clinton with an orange buffoon. Hillary has run a good campaign. She is a respected politician with a passionate following—and more votes than my guy. I didn’t escape the Fox News echo chamber just to embrace an equally angry liberal version.

Typhoon (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I never denied that she didn't have a following. I can same this election was stacked w/o believing there was some sort of centralised conspiracy. I think it is somewhat fallacious to assert that Clinton is "liberal" because she voted with Bernie 93% of the time. She is just as authoritarian as Trump and would be more of a hawk with Obama's policies; since Obama has helped shield torturers, escalated the assassination program, increased mass surveillance, continues to persecute whistleblowers and journalists, and ramped up mass deportation Trump will have plenty of precedent to attack civil liberties. I don't blame you for voting for Clinton since she has a platform of moderate reforms: increasing access to Obamacare, increasing work study and financial aid in order to lower student debt, providing a pathway for citizenship for immigrants already here, raising the minimum wage to $12 an hour, minor reforms on criminal justice and financial regulation, and fighting for reproductive rights. She will have a harder time fighting for these things then Sanders, IMO, but I believe she wants these reforms even if she won't fight for them as much as Sanders might.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 12:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 12:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Dude, stop with the absurd Trump comparisons. You've learned nothing from the article I've linked to you, as you're literally arguing like a 22 year-old. Typhoon (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Do not remove talk page comments

Just don't. Typhoon (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That was a ridiculous link farm.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 13:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's valid to discuss the sudden and brutal change of media portrayal of Sanders. Don't be a sore jerk. Typhoon (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You aren't trying to discuss anything.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 14:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yet, you're right now discussing in there with me. What gives? Typhoon (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Because I am not going to delete other people's comments. You are just shit posting a bunch of blog links about people who dislike Sanders now; no one here did that with Clinton.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 14:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Sanders is shitposting. Got it. Typhoon (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It is just a bunch of blog posts not actual criticisms of his policies.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 15:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that you didn't actually bother to read them. Typhoon (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You gonna edit war over snark?

Really? Are we not allowed to poke fun of your idol anymore? Typhoon (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

No. You removed Chriss's comment on surrogates from his WIGO post. If you put it back I will leave your snark.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC) 15:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, to be mathematically eliminated he needs to be unable to be elected. I know that he won't be but the primary election isn't over.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC) 15:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

That's because it's malicious slander to call them "corrupt" (and you have no proof of corruption at Nevada). Whereas sanders is mathematically eliminated as even CNN reported Typhoon (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

It would technically be libel. Regardless, his point was that they lied about violence.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC) 15:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

That's still not corruption. Try harder.Typhoon (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't put it there. I shouldn't have removed your snark but this isn't something that should be edit warred.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC) 15:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Then don't reinsert blatantly untrue statements. You didn't put in there, but you ARE edit warring to keep it there. Typhoon (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Because if you don't like it then just vote it down. I don't think you should remove those comments.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC) 15:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit, WIGO's are changed all the time if they're incorrect. Hell, this one shouldn't even be here, we have WIGO for elections now. Libelous statements don't belong on Rationalwiki. Typhoon (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

As a word of advice, accusing someone of libel and/or slander is libelous/slanderous in itself so one should be careful about using those words liberally. I will say that expressing an opinion isn't libelous.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC) 17:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

PKK story

That PKK shooting down a helicopter story was kind of old (couple of weeks), but certainly not years, so I guess it's OK to be put there. A newer, more relevant story is this one, if you're interested in putting it up there. I fully support both PKK actions, by the way. With regards to the latter story, I love the bias by the pro-Erdogan Daily Sabah in their reporting on this incident: they call it a terrorist attack despite it only targeting an army convoy in a war. That's called a military operation. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

West

His Obama-hatred is infamous and sourced. Remove it again and I'll consider it vandalism and proceed accordingly. Typhoon (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that he hates Obama because it isn't relevant to the commission and every time you put I will remove it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC) 14:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It's absolutely relevant because it's the first thing new-sites mentioned since that's what he became infamous for and it's also a nice example of Sanders' hypocrisy after he whined about Barney Frank and Dan Malloy being "biased". Typhoon (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Well then we have to add the fact that Frank is a lobbyist now or that Malloy has been cutting the public sector. But this is all irrelevant because Cornel's views on the president have very little to do with what policies both campaigns will agree on as does Malloy's attempts to cut the public sector provides any proof of bias.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 08:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Cornels views have EVERYTHING to do with is, as his inane Obama-vashing is turning away black voters, a demographic that Democrats cannot lose if they want to win elections. Typhoon (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

What is inane about them? He criticizes Obama for continuing Bush's foreign policy unless you are suggesting that every black person ahs to support a black president which would be racist. I don't see how him merely sitting on a commission would turn away black voters and I see noo proof that he turns off a mass amount of voters.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 09:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 09:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

He was already turning black voters away back in January. If you don't see why choosing an Obama-bashing nutjob when the overwhelming majority of black voters have a very positive view of Obama and want to secure his legacy instead of "Berning it down" then you just might be a white, male Bernie zealot. Typhoon (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you using white as an insult? That's cute.Keter (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't be willfully dense, Keter. Typhoon (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You're so Kawaii~ Keter (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

K'sottare!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 23:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Lol you are a fucking racist since now every black person has to support a black president. Apparently, if every black doesn't support you as a black person you are disqualified as a speaker. I mean when a black man bombs innocent Muslims and spies on BLM it is okay. When that say man deports over 2 million migrants and refugees and militarizes the border to an unprecedented level he shouldn't be criticized because he is black. But keep treating white like they are disposable since that really helps the Dems and race relations. I mean that is why Cornel still speaks at so many colleges to black audiences. Oh, but keep complaning about purity tests. Also, I am not white you cishet.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 18:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Obama was elected with 95 percent of their vote in 2008 and 93 percent in 2012. The guy who calls Obama "niggerised" is the racist one, and Sanders is supporting this racist. Sanders lost the black vote overwhelmingly, and it's embarrassing to see a Democratic candidate to have such low support from them. The Democratic party wins elections thanks to minorities, and Sanders is failing to listen to them. And so are you, your privilege is blinding you. Typhoon (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You accused Mona of having an "emotional attachment" to "[her] candidate," but now you call Sanders a "nutjob" and still pretend to be unbiased? You accuse me of throwing "regressive" around as an insult, but now everyone who disagrees with you is ripe for a "privilege" attack? Hahah, never stop being you Typhoon. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Well that kind of criticism being common within identity politics (for example, Malcolm X). There is nothing "embarrassing" about having low African American support than ith any other ethnic groups because those voters can make any decision and they are not the only minorities who vote for Dems. It doesn't matter how much of the black vote Obama wins because it doesn't disqualify other black voters which is a complaint that conservative blacks have with white liberals like you. You are being racist when you automatically view any who has a certain as white like Mona did with the word "Zionist".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 20:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

There's an article on Cornel West

It seriously needs more information. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed but that isn't where this arguement stems from.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 21:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It's something you could be doing instead of getting into stupid arguments... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that I could contribute anything substantial to his article.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 21:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You seem to know enough about him to get into fights about his stances on a tangentially related issue. So that's a start. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Well the arguement stemmed from the relevance of certain statements he has made on a commission he now sits on.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 21:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

A humble request

Can you please read things you type before posting them? All the broken English in WIGO gets annoying. If your browser doesn't have spell checking, get one that does. --Ymir (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, I usually post using a mobile device which lacks spell chack and is sometimes hard to type with.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC) 06:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I screwed up today but nonetheless thanks for the reminder.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC) 06:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Owlman is doing fine. I think he's a zealot weirdo, but he is far better at being open to debate and expressing himself than most of the other bullshit artists on this now-crummy site. Leave him alone. He does enough to destroy his own credibility without this bizarre aspie obsessive compulsion to chase users to their home pages and pile on like RW lemmings. Conscience (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC) 07:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Iran

Turns out that Tim Canova, the Sanders backed challenger to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is now attacking DWS for supporting the Iran deal. "She’s Jewish; I’m not. But I’ve had a Jewish stepdad for 40 years, and I was a volunteer on a kibbutz... And she voted for the Iran agreement. Either she got duped or she was in on it." I'm sure you'll be OK with me mentioning this on Bernie's article after June 7. After all, you did the same on Hillary's article. I mean, you can't be that big of a hypocrite, but I'm curios about how you'll spin this. Typhoon (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

And that has what to do with Sanders? What do you mean when you say I did the same with Clinton's article? If you mean mentioning neocons who support her because of her positions then yeah I mentioned it because they support on those issues. If the info you mention above is relevant to Sanders then Albright's and Steinham comments. Again, this is why we shouldn't mention anything about what any candidate's supporters say or do because it results in bloated pages that talk about non-related issues.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 17:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Supports the Nuclear deal, yet you find it necessary to point out a deluded neocon who supports her despite her having the exact opposite opinion. Noteworthy is also that Hillary isn't supporting said neocon, meanwhile Sanders is supporting a guy with neocon views to replace DWS. Being anti-nuclear deal is OK if it's a Sanders supporter, according to Teh Owlman. Typhoon (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't call someone he doesn't support the Iran deal to be a neocon outright. I am pointing out what Rubin is notable for and Rubin believes that she can convince Clinton to change her position on the deal. Regardless of what Rubin thinks, she supports Clinton's foreign policy positions. Rubin is not running for office so Clinton can't support her in the sam way but she does support Kissinger.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 18:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Bernie is seeking to replace a pro Iran-deal politician with a rabid anti-Iran deal one. YOu made a big fuss over the nuclear deal, yet now it doesn't matter? Also, what Rubin thinks is irrelevant, as Hillary does not support him and will thus not change her opinion (unlike Sanders who's all-in for a anti-Iran hawk). Typhoon (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I made a fuss about handwaving Rubin's opinion of Clinton since it makes no sense to mention her support for the Iran deal in a section covering why neocons support her. Canova's opinio on the Iran deal concerns me but has nothing to do with Sanders because Canova doesn't support Sanders because of Sanders opinion on the Iran deal (which is still quite hawkish btw); on the reversal, Sanders is not supporting Canova because of his opinion on the Iran deal. Also, Rubin is a woman.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 19:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

None of this changes the fact that Bernie is far more pro-Iran deal than Hillary. Hillary said that "all options must remain on the table" with regards to stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Bernie said no mroe war in the Middle-East, and I can believe him when he says he won't go to war. I can't trust Hillary with Iran, seeing as she's helped to start multiple wars in the Middle East. I don't want us at war with Iran. that's why I'm supporting Bernie rather than Hillary. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, as an editor, idc if I believe them as much as I care about what their policy positions entail. When it comes to the Iran deal, Sanders has said he is willing to use military action against Iran if there is evidence that they may be building a nuclear weapon (the Iran deal actually allows this) while Clinton has said she would apply new sanctions on Iran over their possession of ballistic missiles (which they are allowed to possess under the Iran deal); she may be allowed to put new sanctions on Iran but they would most likely suspend the Iran deal using the new sanctions as an example of the US "betrayal". In the past, Clinton has supported Bush's attempt at labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as terrorists.

Sanders, though, has said he believes Obama's foreign policy and his use of drones are constitutional. He would still continue to bomb countries in the Middle East so he still supports war in the Middle East, he just doesn't want our troops to be the ground forces in Syria or Iraq. I haven't seen any info on his opinion on America's military presence in other countries so I doubt he would make any significant reduction to military spending.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 20:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sanders pushing a anti-Iran deal nutjob to political power is much more destabilizing. Hillary worked hard to push the current nuclear deal, and Sanders is now pushing in people who want to undo it. Y'all are hypocrites. Typhoon (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S.:I have more trust in Hillary keeping the nuclear deal that she created alive, than I have in Sanders not fucking the Iran deal up as he continues to surround himself with people clueless on foreign policy due to himself being clueless too. You guys can build your little #NeverHillary club and join the #NeverTrump people in irrelevance. Typhoon (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not you trust Clinton on something is irrelevant. More pressingly is that if we include Sanders support of Canova who happens to not support the Iran deal then we would have to mention candidates Clinton is supporting who hold problematic views like DWS who support payday loans which prey upon PoC; this kind of info would be bloating the page with irrelevant content about the candidates positions. I mention the neocons who support her foreign policy within a section about her neoconservative foreign policy because Clinton doesn't get to determine whether her policies are or aren't neoconservative, just like Ted Cruz doesn't get to determine whether his tax plan is effectively a VAT.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 21:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey

When noticing a duplicate link just follow your own advice and downvote it instead of removing it. Typhoon (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It is a duplicate. I have never said you need to keep duplicates.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 19:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

And now you're editing my submissions. Wasn't it you who complained that I should have just downvoted instead of removing stuff I considered incorrect? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Typhoon (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Weren't you the one who said defamation should be removed. Saying that his campaign literally stole ballot boxes while using an unfounded claim would be defamation.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 04:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

"Just because blacks in the US overwhelmingly like Obama doesn't mean it is in any way relevant"

Here's what Congressman Gregory Meeks of New York, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, had to say couple months ago:

Since both Iowa and New Hampshire are almost entirely white, and Mr. Sanders hails from one of the whitest states in America, the “real primary” is just beginning now, Mr. Meeks argued. He criticized some of Mr. Sanders’ most prominent black surrogates, including Dr. Cornel West, a fierce Obama critic. This, along with a focus on Mr. Sanders’ gun record, has been an emerging Clinton attack line: that Mr. Sanders, who claims to support President Obama and promises to protect his legacy, aligns himself with the likes of Dr. West, who once called President Obama a “niggerized” president for not challenging white supremacy.

“Cornel West is one of the biggest critics of Barack Obama. People like him don’t acknowledge all the good work he’s done,” Mr. Meeks said. “These are all critics of Barack Obama, which means Sanders is a big critic of Barack Obama.”

“Who do they represent? Members of the Congressional Black Caucus can say we’re elected from the black community. Who’s Cornel West? Who does he represent?” Mr. Meeks asked.

And judging from the beating Sanders were to receive afterwards from black voters across the US, I'd say it was absolutely relevant. Typhoon (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Before getting to the core of this Sanders/Cornel West 'criticism', the first question I'm asking is: Do we have anything tangible that indicates this was an issue of note to a considerable share of African American voters or that they were even aware of a Sanders-Cornel West connection? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

He doesn't have anything other than an op-ed. The op-ed's author can hold those views, which I disagree with, but you act as if criticizing Obama in any way would destroy all of his black support. That infantilizes black people and marginalizes those who criticize him.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 19:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. He's not just someone with an op-ed, he's the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. And keep on talking about how it "infantilizes black people", these insults you and other BernieBros have been showing at respected black leaders is one of the many reasons for the hilarious result of Bernie having abysmal levels of support from black voters. Typhoon (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about his credibility, I said it was an op-ed. Just because it is written by someone who is the chairman of the Black Caucus doesn't mean his opinion becomes fact.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 04:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

"I will be upset if she wins and they allow her to implement right wing policies."

Good news, Owlman: She's been a liberal to the left of Obama for many years now. It's funny, just like conservative nutjobs freaked out about how Obama is a "seekrit" communist, I've been enjoying watching Berniebros freak out about how Hillary is actually a "seekrit" rightwinger. Neither has any truth, and is more an example of the scared complainers being themselves on the extreme end of politics. Typhoon (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

They don't claim her to be a secret rightwinger, though.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 13:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 13:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

No they just claim that she's only now shifting to a leftwing position to mask something something. "$hillary is just pandering now for the election!!1!" She's a Republican in all but name!!" Typhoon (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Her flip-flopping is a known thing, though.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 15:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Dude she is a Goldwater Republican. Tell me exactly where she is to the left of Obama.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 16:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I will say that it has been enjoyable watching you act like what you accuse "BernieBros" as whether it be assuming minorities can't hold certain viewpoints lest they risk being white to throwing unequivocal support to Clinton as if she has done nothing wrong.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 16:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I literally posted an entire article detailing why she is. At this point you're just living in your own reality. Typhoon (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Owlman: what policies does she support that make her Republican? Why do those outweigh the ones that make her Democratic? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

She's not Sanders, therefore everything. In other news... Robledo (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

What makes her "right wing", or more like Goldwater, is that she is a war hawk. Her push for regime change as Secretary of State which shows that she believes war is an appropriate form of diplomacy. She was one of the few Dems to vote on a bill which would consider the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Council as a terrorist organization. She still supports the drug war and mass surveillance and I doubt she will close Gitmo or demilitarize the US's border. I understand she will bring in some reforms when it comes to the financial industry and police force but I don't think it will be enough. I don't think this disqualifies her as a Democrat, since the Dems have moved to the right since Reagan.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 04:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrote you a thing

Hey buddy! Check this out. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Cuomo editorial

I moved that back to the world, because it just seems to me that an editorial by the governor of NY, doubling down on his controversial executive decision, is itself a news event. The Clogosphere seems like really weird and wrong place for it. But if you strongly feel differently go ahead and put it back.---Mona- (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Idk. If someone has a stupid excuse for an authoritarian action I feel that is more clog worthy but I will leave I guess.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC) 04:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Nerd

His version is not "more informative", it's only more bullshit because he's trying to make it look like Sanders has still some chance to get the nomination. His erasure of parts about superdelegates is the most telling. Typhoon (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Well sure but there is a lot of good info there. His mentions about how in '08 the most hardcore Clinton supporters voted for Obama is better than just merely assuming the party will unite against Trump. This sentence is great, "Since he's behind Clinton by a large margin, superdelegates throwing their support behind him would be against the will of the people." I think it is disingenuous to say that people are being slacktivist by voting for a third party since they are using their political power to reject other parties. It is also odd that there is an assumption that Sanders's supporters will vote Libertarian since they are much more opposed to Sanders's policies.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC) 08:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

He inserted bullshit like "Bernie thinks his time has come" despite his campaign winding down right now. He removed snark about his campaign slowly landing, even though we're fine with snarky titles on the Republican primary article. He's making the #NeverHillary's sound like they will influence the election, when every other source says that they have less influence than PUMA's. He's also doing many other small edits with the intention to make it appear as if this race is still ongoing. Typhoon (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

He rewrote phrases like "Sanders got destroyed in the remaining states" to "Clinton defeated Sanders in most of the remaining states" - Sanders won Montana and North Dakota. His version is simply correct.--JorisEnter (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sanders expected to win South Dakota and, at worst, only narrowly lose California. Instead he got 'destroyed' there. Typhoon (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The remove the parts that you disagree with instead of reverting the whole thing.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC) 17:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Owlman! That was funny, if I may say so myself. Why not "Thinking about landing" or "Returning to base"? Nerd (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think "Returning to base" would be better since he will go back to being a vocal senator.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 02:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, then. Please go for it! Nerd (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yo, I've already asked him to write what problem he has with my edits. Note that I've said what I find problematic with it in the edit summaries, and so far he's been ignoring it. Typhoon (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well he isn't on. I have read your objections but I still don't understand some parts of your version like why you think Sanders supporters will vote Gary Johnson.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 06:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Uhh... could it be because they both attract anti-establishments voters? I could link an article, but there's so many of them, so how about you just google "sanders johnson" and see for yourself. Either way, the vast majority of Sanders supporters will vote Hillary. Typhoon (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not arguing about how many Sanders supporters will vote for Hillary. I understand that there were libertarians who supported Sanders but they support him because of his persona and not because of his policies. So that shows me that he had cross party support with libertarians. I also find it odd that you believe the AP report didn't have any effect on the turnout when you have contented that Sanders's supporters were less likely to vote because they were younger. People have always skipped voting whe they think that there vote won't make a difference in the end.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 06:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Uhh... The AP report had no effect because the majority of voting was done before it was released? Typhoon (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Not in the states that voted the day after. They, again, counted the superdelegates even though they don't vote until the convention. They didn't even name the superdelegates they spoke to or give any reasons why they wanted to remain anonymous. The DNC didn't even congratulate Clinton affter the AP report and Clinton's campaign was upset by it. And before you say Sanders supported Obama based on the superdelegates I will tell you I don't care because that was wrong. The media was wrong to count the superdelegates in '08 before the convention. It was wrong and overly divisive to tell Clinton to drop out before everyone voted. I think it is politically savvy to stay in as long as possible in order to get your policies accepted by your opponent.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 06:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice meltdown. The AP report had zero effect, Sanders fanboys have a tendency to blame every loss on someone. They can't imagine that people would actually like Hillary more than Bernie. The AP report had miniscule effect, and saying otherwise is just another example of Sanderistas trying to de-legitimize Hillary's wins. Typhoon (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

What meltdown? Anyways no it more than likely did affect the turnout.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 17:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Your link says this:

Romero emphasized that the turnout rates reported Wednesday were preliminary, and that all of the states’ mail-in ballots will be counted in the coming days. She also noted that it may be impossible to definitively say how much the announcement impacted turnout.

Though many recent California polls had Sanders and Clinton neck and neck, Clinton won by such a massive margin that the AP’s call was likely not the deciding factor.

At least five million voters had already mailed in their ballots before the AP’s announcement.

Thanks for proving my point. Now how about you respond to my concerns with Nerd's revision on the article talkpage instead of blindly reverting? Typhoon (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Both Joris and I have reverted you. Besides that I never said he would've won only that it hurt the turnout.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 19:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Said "hurting" which is impossible to measure, but is certain to not be the deciding factor. Plus the fact that 5 million votes were cast before it. Typhoon (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course which ThinkProgress agrees with but voter registration was high and turnout was low. Early voting doesn't count here because they had already voted; it is entirely possible that they wouldn't have voted had the report been released before they casted their ballot.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Some fine bullshit from Owlman

Wounded knee was a massacre. It's not a "battle" to shoot unarmed women and children. And how does "race riot" and "organized massacre" make it different? Both are massacres, just like Orlando was a massacre. Typhoon (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You can still massacre people during war. And yes, there is a difference between a lone gunman killing people randomly and a group of people trying to ethnic cleansing people.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 19:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Then why didn't you say in the article that we're only counting lone gunmen? Typhoon (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Well I didn't think to be that specific.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 19:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Single man in single building. Mass shooting in small place, not spread out throughout entire city. Big difference. StickySock (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned Wikipedia in my edit summary because if that edit-war central can agree on this wording then there is no reason why Rationalwiki can't too. Typhoon (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly enough on this subject to edit war over. Let's just put this to vote and be done with it? StickySock (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)