User talk:Tea Sagan

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Tea Sagan! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Albeit belatedly. Nerd (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to say hi

Probably will only be here sporadically.--Tea Sagan (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless, We offer you our hospitality for the time you are--Spoony (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is my name in red? What does it mean when a page can only be edited if people are "autoconfirmed?"--Tea Sagan (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

I like long, well-thought-out edits like yours. For a run-down of your newfound ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ, leaf through Rationalwiki:Autopatrolled. ~ ♥ 04:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. But I still don't get why my name is in red?^{— Unsigned, by: Tea Sagan / talk / contribs}

Your name is in red because you haven't made a user page, click on one of the red links to your name to make one. Christopher (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope that took care of it. --Tea Sagan (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Dore

Thank you for being my Jimmy Dore attack dog on the TYT talk page. I am too lazy to defend him myself, but I'm glad that someone else is on board with him as I am. In my heart of hearts I know that Jimmy's not a conspiracy nut, and that he is only called such because he so often questions the official narrative and gives coverage to sources challenging official narratives. Nonetheless, I was willing to throw somebody a bone and call him a strikethrough conspiracy theorist; however, you didn't agree with that, and, in truth, neither did I, so I'm glad I've got someone in agreement. YB ^indeed! 15:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I find Jimmy refreshing for his intelligence married to scathing humor. Still checking out this site and not sure how much I fit. Debunking woo and crankery is my thing, but so is liberatory politics. (The two are joined, but not as superficially as many neoliberals think; I'm a non-theist but not an anti-theist, and humankind does require that distinction.)There seem to be a lot of decidedly non-skeptical, conventional neoliberal establishment types here, folks who think the end of progress arrived with Clinton, Blair and Macron. If that's the case, if these are the majority, I won't be wasting my time here much. Not that I have a lot of time to give, but I'll see if this site is even worth the trouble. If guys like you don't stand up for what you think, well, the mediocrities and devotees of status quo will control.--Tea Sagan (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

BYE I had to wait 30 minutes before the Authoritarian allowed me to post his. Something happened. I challenged faulty and mean-spirited material on the new Jimmy Dore page, and someone, I guess a "BuckledDegree" put me in a thing called the "vandal bin." I'm out of here. If you, YB, want like-minded people here, do something about the fact that you don't speak up and that others apparently don't either, and that people like you/me can be silenced. (Some message was sent to me warning me about "turning a new leaf." I've done nothing wrong and will NOT be treated like a troll.) I have better things to do with my intellect and time. These guys can trash Dore here if the majority wishes to, but in the real world these people can't win elections without us so they better start sucking up real fast and treating us better, although that clearly isn't happening HERE. Unless someone tells me what this vandal bin thing is and makes it stop, I'm gone -- actually, I'm gone even if they do tell me. I was told this site doesn't grow much -- now I see why. Not that those happy with the status quo will care about losing me. So everyone is happy. [shrug]--Tea Sagan (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You're fucking insane, this page is not for groupies of a unfunny comedian and crazy conspiracy theorist, It's for the facts.Jaydogg1994 (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'm insane. Apparently those with the power to silence me here agree with you. Fans of progressives like Jimmy Dore are insane and not welcome here, we are advised we are mentally ill. Got it.--Tea Sagan (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You should've seen it last year. The Sanders and Clinton wings were at each others' throats. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Tea Sagan, some of your recent edits were vandalism. You removed sourced, relevant and accurate information with no explanation. You removed the claim he is a conspiracy theorist despite there being an entire sourced section demonstrating this. You made an edit suggesting that he had "stepped over the line into reality" by enabling Seth Rich conspiracy theorists and reporting on fake stories about Hillary Clinton. CowHouse (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Tea Sagan is most likely a Jimmy Dore sockpuppet, It wouldn't be the first time on this site that a controversial figure tried to take over their own article.Jaydogg1994 (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Side Note

If you want to change the Jimmy Dore article, go to the talkpage. Edit warring gets no one anywhere. I understand the need to express oneself. But to do so, you need to follow the rules, be respectful, and, if necessary, compromise. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Just bring stuff up on the talkpage, back your claims up with sources, and we can all work this out. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The Jimmy Dore page was removed from The Young Turks page where I had already initiated discussion -- I just followed the move. That is, the subject matter had already been much tossed about. Removing un- or badly sourced material is not a wrong thing -- I'm a retired academic (sociology of religion), perhaps my standards are not the same as here? Either way, if I'm left in this limbo with so many agreeing this "bin" is right, I will just make my time and abilities elsewhere and all will be happy. I've not been been disciplined at any Internet site, and if this one thinks I merit it, I really am inclined to think the problem is the site, as I've never had this happen before in several decades of online participation.--Tea Sagan (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You've been debinned

I haven't really been following the Jimmy Dore stuff so I can't comment as to whether it was a good idea. Christopher (talk) 06:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. This idea of "edit warring," what do you do when you've talked to someone and they just don't adhere to reason or evidence? Is it the rule here that you have to just let them continue writing as they please?--Tea Sagan (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You leave the page as it was before the edit war started and discuss on the talk page. It's frustrating when people don't immediately realise that you're always right about everything but it usually works. Christopher (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Um, yeah, but I didn't realize I was walking into an "edit war." There wasn't one when I started editing and I didn't know it was this horrible thing to have a person go berserk to what i write (with documentation from a credible source) and not accept their weird reaction. I tried to reason. If offering evidence from credible sources doesn't work then, well, again, I can't grasp how it works here. Does this Cowbell and his confrerees have the last word?

Look, can anyone just make a new arrival into a -- what is it, a 'vandalized bin person' -- who can only comment every 30 minutes? And rule us "insane?" Is that normal here?--Tea Sagan (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Theoretically, yes. But we only do that if people start edit-warring as you did (which is fine, you're new, I understand). I debinned you because you deserve a second chance.

Also, considering your academic specialty, we have dozens of religion-related articles that could use some improvement. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I reverted some things on the Dore page, but I'd really rewrite it. I won't stay here, for any reason, including the scholarly interests I have, if anyone can just do this"bin" me thing"and no one in sufficient authority or numbers cares what is true.--Tea Sagan (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You don't really have anything useful to add to this site anyway, It's just not working out especially with your habit of removing sourced information that you disagree with, A blind person could do better edits then you, You should show a lot more respect for this site and your fellow editors, So in other words, Fuck off we don't need a deluded fanboy of a unfunny comedian messing things up. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Tea Sagan, rage edits will get you binned. Given that you have been binned multiple times, I recommend you change your behaviour rather than continuing to blame everyone else. Many administrators have been incredibly patient with you and have given you multiple chances to improve your behaviour, but if you continue to act this way then you will continue to get binned. You still have not even acknowledged you have done anything wrong. Instead of removing everything on the page you didn't like, you should use the talk page. Fans of people with pages here will semi-regularly come here and vandalise pages, and will be binned/blocked to prevent further vandalism. If you see things from our perspective, you would be more careful not to behave the same way.

Another piece of constructive criticism I can offer is to improve your edit summaries. For example, in this edit, your edit summary was riddled with spelling errors and was incoherent. Such edits are usually interpreted as angry rants rather than genuine, constructive edits.

Jaydogg1994, it's ok to be frustrated but don't just insult Tea Sagan. It achieves nothing. To use your own words: "you should show a lot more respect for this site and your fellow editors." At least try to offer some constructive criticism. CowHouse (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I stepped out of line there, he's shouldn't be editing on this site if the only thing he's going to be doing is removing sourced information he disagrees with. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Periodically I guess I'll just edit with facts I know as true. Not sure what else to do? If others want to change all my edits and rely on unsourced (or wingnut/neoliberal sourced)falsehoods, not much I can or care to do. This site isn't worth a lot of attention if no one cares about quality control. Nor have any friendly humans reached out to give me any encouragement. Not impressed.--Tea Sagan (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC

All of your recent edits have been vandalism and removing sourced information, You should've been blocked a long time ago and with your threat to bring people on this site to vandalize the page (to make it harder to remove your bad edits, a guy did the same thing on Dore's Wikipedia page) I hope you do get blocked. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment. Not by me, just thought someone should let you know. Christopher (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Your edits on Bernie Sanders

Your claim that sanders is the most popular politician in the world is incorrect, this explains why :https://imgur.com/LufQJHE, Bernie refused to endorse Ralph Northam, So your claim that the recent democratic wins are because of sanders is false, : https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/sen-bernie-sanders-endorses-tom-perriello-in-virginia-governors-race/2017/04/04/e25784ba-1565-11e7-ada0-1489b735b3a3_story.html?utm_term=.9e0613c8a1b3, Also it reads more like a fan page than a neutral article, Find more primary sources and less secondary sources, Also it needs to be more neutral. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jaydogg1994 While your assessment of Tea Sagan's edits may be correct (I haven't reviewed them yet), bear in mind that RationalWiki does not necessarily embrace Neutral Point of View. We care that the article is snarky and accurate, and the snark can slide if necessary. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I did not claim Sanders "is the emost popular politician in the world."In the US.., per a stream of polls for the last year. Cite me reliable polls, 3-6, that contravene the parade of others in the last year attesting to his popularity (as reported in mainstream media all over), and I will accede to correction.--Tea Sagan (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)