User talk:Alec Sanderson

If I knew the way/I would take you home. 19:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You know all the rules by now, and the fire from the ice. Alec Sanderson (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Alec, I saw your request on the Saloon bar, so you're autopatrolled now. 21:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. Not answering a CAPTCHA feels like freedom. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert?
Hi! I was wondering why you reverted my edit adding to the article Kangaroo court. Thanks! --Lixxx235 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't Wikipedia. Add citations if you like, but tags on uncontroversial statements just clutter up the place. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup in produce aisle
Every wiki-gnome should have a mop for when things get dropped on the floor. To be on the safe side, ask somebody before using it for anything you might consider drastic. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll be careful with it. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Dino-sawrs
The hadrosaurs are cool and all, but the best dinosaurs are definitely the theropods. Case in point, Therizinosaurus (honestly this is just my personal opinion, not any kind of community backing it). TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC) P.S. Feel free to delete this section if I committed some sort of faux pas creating a section on someone else's talk page. I'm new here.
 * I like theropods. I had a theropod salad sandwich yesterday. It tasted just like chicken. At least Therizonosaurus (no way to type that one quickly if my life depended on it) doesn't need to deal with "short arms lol" comments like T. rex does. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried eating a hadrosaur once, but I broke all my teeth and then the museum security arrested me for messing with the specimens.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

How's your Portuguese?
I can parse a little tiny bit from studying Brazilian guitar for a number of years, but that's it. Letting a guy, whom I'm sure has nothing but good intentions, write pages in a language that nobody else reads or writes and branding those pages as RW canon is problematic, in my view. Collaboration is rendered impossible. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree about the good intentions, along with the difficulty of collaboration.
 * There was a time when I could understand and be understood by speakers of Brazilian Portuguese, mostly learned by workplace immersion. Blue-collar stuff, not literary at all. Nowadays I make use of google translate, filling in the gaps with common sense.
 * If I see something, I will try to fix it, but that will be hit-or-miss, given my spotty attendance. Alec Sanderson (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Crop circles
How are my comments counter-productive? "Crop Circles" rrstuv 01:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The "counter-productive" comes as part of the standard drop-down menu item for edit warring, in the page protection dialog box. It is the edit warring that is counter-productive, not necessarily your comments. Make a case for your changes at Talk:Crop circles, and things may go differently. Alec Sanderson (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi - why were my changes to the article on crop circles reverted? These changes attempted to un-bias the writing. rrstuv 01:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Please see for the changes. Edit warning for editing that is counter-productive - can you explain in what way, or why?


 * Not edit warning, but edit-warring. Alec Sanderson (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You know that I am Foster the Cruel, right?
Of course you do. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No you aren't. You're Hokusai the Protean. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Argument from first cause
Hi, you reverted my edit to the Argument from First Cause article. That's fair enough because I should've brought the issue up on the Talk page instead (I'm not used to editing wiki pages). I've now posted in the Talk section for that page. I think it's an important point because I believe the argument given in the article is a strawman.




 * I see discussion being engaged at Talk:Argument from first cause. Of course, I will keep an eye on it there. Don't worry about getting used to editing wiki pages; it comes by osmosis. :) Alec Sanderson (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleting pages
When deleting pages, especially those created by trolls, please make sure to clear the default edit summary, which is an excerpt from the article. Otherwise you risk immortalizing vandalism in the deletion log. (An example.) --ZooGuard (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, that makes sense. My thinking was that the default edit summary would give some evidence as to why the page was deleted. Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

A possible theory of everything?
Please check out my talk page, I am no vandal, and I feel like I have something to contribute.
 * 1) 2362

ZombieCheney (talk)@ZombieCheney

Why did you revert my change?
I thought it was quite reasonable: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Obama_citizenship_denial&diff=1480228&oldid=1433180

The headings were terrible, and I greatly improved them.

Thanks! KevinBerner (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Opinions differ. Some time last year or early this one (2015) another editor greatly improved them. Today you made them terrible. Alec Sanderson (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I figured you wouldn't have a rational answer. Any objective person can look at that diff and see I made them much clearer and better.
 * KevinBerner (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Any objective person knows that the "issue" of Obama's citizenship is moot. The creative section headings reflect the fact that nobody in their right mind cares about it. Pick up shattered pieces of life, and move on. Alec Sanderson (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Whether the issue is moot irrelevant to this discussion. And sometimes, the truth eventually comes out.

Those section names aren't "creative", they are useless, noise, and disinformation, which prevent people from bothering to read the words for themselves to more deeply understand what is going on. It makes the talk page almost useless, which perhaps you want. Anyway, I just wanted to ask if you had any reason for the revert, or concrete suggestions of acceptable changes. I suspected you had neither, but I wanted to verify. Thanks! KevinBerner (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Tea Party
Do you honestly feel the tea party article fits Rational Wiki's mission?

''Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. Documenting the full range of crank ideas. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.''

Or that the laughable bias belongs in a rational discussion?


 * The teabaggers fall under fundamentalism. Also, look up "snarky point of view." PS Demanding a article be deleted isn't the best way to go about "Wanting the Truth." Oh, also   PsyGremlin undefined 12:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I wasn't "demanding" the article be deleted, merely trying to open the debate. Not that it matters, but I'm a Democrat and a skeptic who finds that article, and other politically motivated articles on this site, embarrassing. Such obvious bias makes it too easy to dismiss everything else RationalWiki says. The snarky point of view doesn't help either. But if you'd prefer to freeze my account and revert even the suggestion that deleting the article might be worth considering, then so be it. Clearly I was fooled by your use of the word "rational". Best of luck building the left-wing alternative to Conservapedia.


 * We are not, and never have been "the left-wing alternative to Conservapedia". What is more, if you wanted a debate, you'd have approached in a more open fashion. I call Concern_troll Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * What is the more open fashion in which I should have approached? I proposed deleting the Tea Party article to open a debate (following the instructions on [RationalWiki:Articles for deletion]). That was immediately reverted, and my account temporarily frozen for unreverting. So what should I do? I'd welcome a discussion about mixing rational (even if snarky) criticism of psuedoscience and opinion-based criticism of politics. IWantTheTruth (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)




 * If you really think the teabagging article is a fit target for deletion, by all means go ahead and complete the AfD nomination. There are simple instructions for that somewhere, which I trust you have the wherewithal to find. Don't be surprised when someone invokes the snowball clause. Someone else, that is; I'm done with this. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Tea baggers also fall for crank ideas, IMO, and they are the laughable ones. Further discussion of this topic belongs on Talk:Tea Party movement. Thanks for your concern, Alec Sanderson (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Fundie schools
I added Patrick Henry College to my list of things to do here. You're absolutely correct, an analysis of their curriculum is missing from their article.

Investigating the entire fundie school phenomenon would be a gargantuan task! I realized that when I looked into TRACS. Regards, --Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Gargantuan indeed. Casual googling shows them to be sympathetic to the ICR. On it goes... Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

btw
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:RationalMedia_Foundation/Voter_registration

you need to add your name to this list to vote in the bar. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You've been nominated!
Over here. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:06, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

On a related note
I technically altered the wording of one of your remarks on the mod campaign page, but I only changed "above" to "below" in order to match the reorganization I did, which in turn was to allow separate numbering of the anti-endorsements. Hope that isn't objectionable to you; if it is, like, rollback and banhammer me or something. 15:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw that, and thanks! Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey
Your attention is directed to. Best wishes! Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Best wishes for a speedy rehabilitation. I remember you as doing good work. Alec Sanderson (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the introduction. However, I cannot seem to edit my talk page. Yes, I looked at the instructions. Ah poor me.Teurastaja (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)