User talk:AndyChrist

—Kazitor, pending 08:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Because of your edits to and time on the wiki,  has been added to your user rights. If you have questions, bleat ask away. —Kazitor, pending 11:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Sandbox
I moved what you were working on from RationalWiki:Sandbox to User:AndyChrist/sandbox. Feel free to keep editing. CowHouse (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Show Preview
—ClickerClock (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Sysop
Bongolian (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Capitalize them like this on article pages
Got it?

Also, the standard layout of an RW page goes See also first, then External links, then Notes and finally References.

Anyway, sincere thanks for single-handedly making several pages ten times bigger than they  were before you came along.

Have a great day! Spud (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You didn't bloody well listen to me, did you? I had to move your article to Bayes' theorem and jurisprudence because, in case you haven't noticed, that's how we capitalize articles here. And I had to correct the way you wrote all the bloody headings too. Thanks a bloody bunch! Spud (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Spud, that was an article and based on solid research...


 * It hasn't been deleted. It's just been moved to Essay:Bayes' theorem and jurisprudence. And that wasn't my decision, that was the result of a discussion in which you could have participated. And that has sod all to do with your failure to follow advice on capitalization. Spud (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your edits
They are not good quality despite being substantial. I expect you to write better and also provide better sources, not obscure figures or MRA Youtubers, if not at least properly source your things. Simply placing ref names without creating a proper reference ends up in a blank references and an error in the references section. If you're going to whitewash articles (like this edit which is far from "philosophically correct" as discussed on the talk page subsequently) and make other major contentious changes, discuss it in the talk pages. 04:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

It is philosophically correct. Misogyny and sexism are not the same. Misogyny requires knowledge of a speaker's/actor's emotional basis for an action whereas sexism does not as misogyny is defined as hate of women. To define it otherwise is conflation. Moreover things like abortion rights would be more accurately described as a sexist issue as we are talking about what is just, not hate which is what misogyny requires. As for using a MRA on that page, he is the only one who addressed the history of misogyny philosophically that I have seen and what was there before I edited reeked of Islamic apologetics.

Causality article
Thanks for fixing up the "Causality" article TheEOE (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

One of the articles you made is subject to an AfD vote
Please check it out here: RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Hydroxychloroquine. 09:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In your defense of keeping this page, you stated, "I just look at the science and the science is in favor. That is what p-values mean." (RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 2020) That's erroneous because low p-value does not equal truth; it's just a probability measurement. Scientific consensus builds around several things, of which low p-value is just one part. Others include confirmation of experimental results from near-identical independently conducted experiments that use randomized controls, conducting dissimilar experiments that help to rule out alternative explanations, and peer review. Bongolian (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)