User talk:Philip J. Rayment

From Conservapedia

Welcome to the talk page of Philip J. Rayment.

NOTE:

• If I leave a message on your talk page, I will watch it for a reply.
• If you leave a message on my talk page, I will reply to it here.

Please leave a new message here by clicking the "+" tab above, or by clicking here.

• Archive 1 (Created 3rd May 2007)
• Archive 2 (Created 18th May 2007)
• Archive 3 (Created 15th July 2007)
• Archive 4 (Created 11th December 2007)
• Archive 5 (Created 26th March 2008)
• Archive 6 (Created 5th June 2008)
• Archive 7 (Created 20th September 2008)
• Archive 8 (Created 11th November 2008)

• /Evolution Continuation of a discussion on the Theory of evolution talk page

Kel's substanceless rants about me

I posted recently on HelpJazz' talk page that a person named Kels on another website had called both me and Creation Ministries liars. I said there:

That same accuser (Kels) also accused me and Creation Ministries International of lying, ("he won't hesitate to lie and twist at the slightest opportunity" and "He accepts every lie creationontheweb feeds him") yet offered no evidence of that whatsoever. I accept that many people don't accept my views and think that I'm mistaken, deluded, or even stupid, but I don't go around saying things that I know to be untrue (and nor does CMI). Accusations like that without solid supporting evidence are nothing short of libel (not that I could be bothered suing), and he is despicable for making the accusation, and should be censured by others there, but by their silence they are just as bad.

Since then, one person has challenged Kels on this (thanks Ajkgordon). And Kels has defended her claims—with more substanceless claims!

She said, "He accepts CreationOnTheWeb and AiG, who spread repeatedly refuted obvious lies..", yet still offers absolutely no evidence of such lies! She also says that I argue "...against things that are repeatedly cited to him and explained in minute detail.". Yeah? So what? Am I supposed to just say, "Oh, an evolutionist using typical evolutionist arguments; they must be right and I must be wrong"? Actually, many people repeatedly argue against things that I cite and explain in minute detail. Does that make those people wrong?

Remember the story of the bee that wasn't able to fly? PJR's like someone who still insists it's impossible after it's been proven to be possible...

This is obviously meant as an analogy of my close-mindedness rather than an actual argument that I use, but ironically, that's something that I used to believe, but no longer do, as can be seen by a recent edit I made here. And as Kels smears leading creationists along with me, I would also point out that Creation Ministries International (and AiG) have long published a list of arguments creationists should not use[2], which includes arguments that they themselves used to use! The facts are that CMI, AiG, and I are all prepared to change our minds when presented with convincing evidence. Meanwhile, I know of no anti-creationist publishing a similar list of arguments that evolutionists should not use. Arguments such as embryos having gills that have been repeatedly refuted are still often trotted out by anti-creationists.

So there you have it, an example of how he's either a liar (by deliberately spreading this falsehood about a spurious and incorrect definition of "information") or an idiot (by uncritically accepting the AiG/CotW version, and they definitely know it's false, so they're liars anyhow).

This "example" is nothing more than Kels saying that she is right so therefore I'm wrong, combined with a repeated-but-still-unsupported claim that AiG and CMI (CreationOnTheWeb) are liars. If it's so well established that they are liars, why does she not give any evidence of them publishing something that they know to be wrong with evidence that they know it to be wrong? No, without evidence, this is just hot air, and contemptible.

So you're saying that AiG are not liars? That they aren't deliberately peddling this "new information" nonsense, when it's obviously garbage and they've been told so frequently? That they don't have this sort of thing on their website, that's been refuted countless times? You're telling me that both sites don't spread this sort of misinformation that has been publicly refuted many times, and leave it there even after the refutations, because it's good at convincing people who don't know science? That's lying, and I'm sorry you don't see it.

So if Kels thinks that it's "obviously garbage", then it really must be and therefore AiG have to believe Kels, and therefore they are liars because they continue to publish it. Logic is totally absent from that claim. Just because an evolutionist tries refuting a creationist argument doesn't mean that the refutation is actually valid, nor that the creationists must necessarily be convinced by it so that continued use constitutes a lie. I could equally well claim that evolutionist arguments have been refuted by creationists countless times, and therefore evolutionists are liars for continuing to use those arguments! Of course what really matters is the evidence and which one has the better arguments, but that doesn't matter to Kels. The mere fact that evolutionists have tried to refute creationist arguments is absolute proof that creationists are liars! No, Kels, that absolutely does not constitute lying, and I'm sorry that your sad site has so few people willing to call you on that.

For the information of those who have not seen me explain this before, I will not go to that site to argue my case because of a lack of time. I spend too much time on Conservapedia as it is, and too much of that arguing the same points over and over again. In principle I could go there and argue just this point, but once having registered I would probably find myself arguing many other things said about me also, so not registering there makes it easier for me to resist the temptation to refute every false accusation.

But while I'm at it, I might as well try and extract an apology from another person there and see if he keeps his word.

You know, I'd accept [what another poster wrote] if A, he didn't hide behind Conservapedia to claim victory when he's afriad to debate in an uncontrolled environment. B, he didn't use Creationontheweb and AnswersinGensis for EVERY ARGUMENT EVER ...
You show me one site, outside of his control where he engages in open debate with someone and I'll happily apologize right now. I still think he's afraid to come over here because he knows that he doesn't have the power to revert and ban any uncomfortable statements.

Before I get to A I will respond to B: I only infrequently use AiG, and I don't always use either CMI or AiG, although I do use CMI a lot. It's also noteworthy that this person chooses to attack the source of my information rather than address the arguments themselves.

I have debated on at least three other discussion forums in the past (none of which I had any position of authority on), two quite extensively, but they were under a pseudonym that I still wish to keep secret, so I can't produce them as evidence. And another person on that site pointed out that I've had a number of e-mail discussions with various people. But apart from those, I can point to discussions I've been involved in here and here, which should satisfy this person's requirements for an apology.

Philip J. Rayment 08:30, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Firstly, you could just go to the other website that shall not be named, rather than using our friend Ken's red telephone method. As charming as his missives are, I think I speak for all when I say we have a deal more respect for you than for him.

As regards the other things you've said. Well, I'd heartily dispute this idea that AiG et al. are ready to change their minds. One has only to look as far as their statement of faith to see this is true. What is it about the bald statement "The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe." that leads you to believe they are ready to accept evidence contrary to their worldview?

You say that the defenders of evolution use long discredited arguments using embryonic gill slits as an example. The problem with this is that is an example of a long discredited creationist argument. What defenders of evolution actually say is that embryos have pharyngeal pouches in common, suggesting a common ancestor. This is just one of many developmental features embryos share in common, something which simply can't be explained if we are to accept the premise that the world and everything in it was created by fiat.

The thing is, nobody can possibly take you seriously when you cite creationist websites as a source. These people have obvious axes to grind, and everything they write is coloured with that. You merely have to compare the output of so-called Answers Research Journal with a real scholarly publication to see how ridiculous they are. Now, if you can find real scientists that are conducting real research who conclude the world was created by fiat 6000 years ago, by all means cite them, but otherwise religion really needs to be kept out of the scientific arena. --Taciturn 18:33, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I explained above why I don't go there to put my case. Did you not read that?

"... I'd heartily dispute this idea that AiG et al. are ready to change their minds.": Despite me providing evidence of them doing so? Is this a case of ignoring evidence that is contrary to your opinion?

"One has only to look as far as their statement of faith to see this is true. What is it about the bald statement ...that leads you to believe they are ready to accept evidence contrary to their worldview?": There's several point to make in response to this:

• Given that the Genesis account is of events that occurred a long time ago and we don't have a time machine to go back and observe what happened, I wonder what possible evidence could indisputably refute that.
• As the part you quoted says, the Genesis account provides a framework within which research is done. True, they are not willing to reject the framework, but that doesn't mean that they will never change their minds when there is contrary evidence.
• Evolutionists also have a framework that they will not budge on. At root, it is naturalism. No matter what evidence is offered, they will remain naturalistic; they will not accept the possibility of a supernatural Creator being involved. And they will also not budge on evolution. They may change their minds on some of the details, even major ones (e.g. slow and gradual vs. punctuated equilibrium), just as creationists will, but they will stick with evolution itself, just as creationists will stick with creation itself. So isn't rather hypocritical to accuse just creationists of this?

"What defenders of evolution actually say is that embryos have pharyngeal pouches ...": No, some will say gill slits. See here for an example.

"...something which simply can't be explained if we are to accept the premise that the world and everything in it was created by fiat.": Oh? Why not? Why could not the Creator have created different creatures with similar embryonic development features?

"The thing is, nobody can possibly take you seriously when you cite creationist websites as a source. These people have obvious axes to grind, and everything they write is coloured with that.": Oh? So evolutionists writing about evolution are not colouring their writing with their views, but creationists writing about creation are? That sounds like bigotry to me.

"You merely have to compare the output of so-called Answers Research Journal with a real scholarly publication to see how ridiculous they are.": Substanceless rhetoric. Can you actually mount a real argument on this?

"Now, if you can find real scientists that are conducting real research who conclude the world was created by fiat 6000 years ago, by all means cite them...": How about Russell Humphreys[3], Raymond Damadian[4], John Baumgardner[5], Geoff Downes[6], Ian Macreadie[7], and John Hartnett[8], for examples. Admittedly, two of them are now retired, but they were doing "real research" in recent years and were YECs at the time. The rest still do research in secular institutions. In fact most of the people listed here would fulfill your requirements. Now let's see you try and worm out of that, probably by changing your stated requirements. Because there's a good chance that you will refuse to change your mind in the face of the evidence, just as you accuse creationists of doing.

"...otherwise religion really needs to be kept out of the scientific arena.": Atheism too? And Naturalism (the belief that nature is all there is, and there is no supernatural?

Philip J. Rayment 22:23, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Part 2

Well, Kels has seen this response, and guess what? There was not even an attempt to justify the claim of "liar". The nearest that she came was to try and worm out of it by claiming that she was "merely venting". And even this was only after Arizaphale and Ajkgordon had three times hauled her over the coals over the claims of lying!

Instead, she tried diverting attention by talking about other things. In one case she picked on the list of scientists above, fulfilling a prediction I made (although about Taciturn) that the response would be to change the requirements. Her criticism was that

...some of whom do "real research", presumably at "real universities". Damned peculiar not a single one of them seems to have come up with any, you know, evidence of a young earth during their research.

With one exception, all the scientists I listed work or worked for secular organisations. Seeing she apparently couldn't be bothered looking them up (even though I provided links), here's where:

• Russell Humphreys: Was at Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) (now retired).
• Raymond Damadian: Has his own company (actually, I don't know if he's still working or not; he's 72 now). But being one of the main developers of magnetic resonance imaging surely counts as "real research", does it not?
• John Baumgardner: Los Alamos National Laboratory (now retired)
• Geoff Downes: CSIRO (Australia).
• Ian Macreadie: CSIRO (Australia).
• John Hartnett: University of Western Australia

So the scare quotes around "real research" and "real universities" is shown to be typical anti-creationist put-down falsehood.

Working as they do for secular universities, they are not likely to get far trying to do research into a recent creation, nor with publishing those ideas. But despite that, it's not true that they haven't come up with evidence of a young Earth during their research. John Baumgardner has been acknowledged (by the secular scientific community) as having the best computer model of tectonic plate movement, and he says that his model works best in a young-Earth framework. John Hartnett's research includes a young-Earth cosmology. So that claim about no evidence of a young Earth from their research is simply false also. But then what do you expect when Kels has obviously done no real research into this? An unresearched claim of "no research" is rather hollow. She claims no evidence by creationists, but supplies none when challenged, instead diverting the discussion onto other criticisms.

The posts by Arizaphale and Ajkgordon are worth repeating, although I'll limit myself to just quoting one, by Ajkgordon.

Repeated accusations of lying are ultimately counter-productive. While it's an easy claim to make and loved by "anti-creationists (yes, I can see what they're doing by inventing that phrase)", it doesn't help to persuade anyone else that PJR and YEC are wrong. Indeed, in many cases, it may help to achieve the opposite. The most effective way of selling rationality is to argue rationally however frustrating that might be. To the non-scientist and college kids, PJR is beating you at your own game.

(Perhaps I should be thanking Kels for making me look good!)

Did I get the apology I wrote about in the section above? Nope. Despite the person who promised to do so posting there again discussing this section of my talk page, there was no mention of the promised apology whatsoever.

Another poster claimed that I would "never accept science", which is utter balderdash. I keep pointing out that science was founded on a biblical basis. Even if you don't believe that, why would I do that if I don't accept science? I often quote CMI, who have a number of scientists on staff. Even if you don't think that they are proper scientists, why would they claim to be if they don't accept science? I keep making a distinction between science and history, claiming that evolution (like creation) is more (claimed) history than science. Why would I bother distancing evolution from science if I didn't accept science? No, this is nothing more than fact-free anti-creationist rhetoric, ironically from people who consider themselves rational!

The rest of that person's post was about as devoid of facts as the claim that I don't accept science.

Yet another person said, "Also PJR, if you are watching, there are a series of youtube videos called "The 12 Falsehoods of Creationism" that you might enjoy. It rebuts many of your arguments.": My Internet connection is not fast enough to watch streaming video in real time, but I did have a look at the first one, and one thing that it didn't do is rebut creationist arguments. It was full of rhetoric, blatant falsehoods, ironically hypocritical claims, and mockery, but no actual rebuttals!

(One of several times that my irony meter shot up was when I heard the narrator say that "it's a whole other matter to willfully deceive others into believing things that are definitely not true, like creationism", against an image from the movie Inherit the Wind, a fictionalised version of the Scopes trial, with the character representing Bryan in an incoherent tirade in his closing argument, despite Bryan not giving a closing argument in the real trial!)

Philip J. Rayment 10:24, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Part 3

Well, well, well! Kels has actually retracted her "accusation" (singular, but perhaps that was just a typo) of lying. Thanks, Kels!

She then goes on to address the list of scientists I gave. I've been down this road before, where anti-creationists make sweeping claims about creationists and their science, only to be shown to be wrong, and then start changing the rules. In one particular case, now in one of my user talk page archives on Wikipedia, I was careful to get the question clarified before I replied. When I did reply, I showed them to be wrong (or answered their supposedly unanswerable question) and they slunk away. In this case I thought the question was clear enough that I didn't ask for clarification, so just went ahead and answered. The question had three requirements:

• The people had to be "real" scientists.
• The people had to be doing "real" research.
• The people had to have concluded that the world was created 6,000 years ago.

What was not said, but rereading it now was perhaps meant, was that they had to come to this conclusion from their "real" research. However, I took it to be a question about whether "real" scientists, defined by doing "real" research (i.e. not just the academic qualification) could possibly believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago. So I supplied a list of such people.

Kels, by the use of scare quotes, questioned whether they really were "real" scientists, and really did work at "real" universities (although working at a university was never a requirement. She also claimed that none had come up with any evidence of a young Earth during their research.

So I listed who they worked for, to show that they really were "real" scientists doing "real" research. Kels' subsequent comments have not disputed those facts at all, showing that her questioning of their credentials was unwarranted. This is a typical example of false claims made by anti-creationists.

I also pointed out that they would not normally be doing research showing the Earth to be young, nor publishing any such research, whilst working for secular organisations. But that didn't stop her trying to criticise them on those grounds anyway. Yet the criticisms don't amount to much. Her criticism of Humphreys, even if all true (which I have my doubts about, but she provided no specifics), amounts to saying that a scientist doesn't meet the requirements because not all their research turned out to be correct. Isn't this par for the course in science? (By the way Kels, if you want to find out more about John Hartnett, look for him on his university's web-site.) And don't believe what anti-creationist sites tell you about these people: they have an agenda!

However, it does not follow, as she claims, that therefore they do no research into a young Earth. They do; they simply can't publish it in the secular journals, so instead use the peer-reviewed creationist journals.

On a different note, that person who promised to apologise if he saw evidence of me having discussions off Conservapedia has posted again, but has still not apologised. It seems that the promise was hollow.

And on a totally unrelated note, except that it was posted in the same place, a reply to TomMoore: The discussion seems to have stopped anyway.

Philip J. Rayment 10:18, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Just to clarify...

My disagreement with Kels on her accusations of lying doesn't mean I support YEC, Philip :) Ajkgordon 08:46, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Don't worry, I'm under no false illusion about that! Philip J. Rayment 20:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Palestine

If you have the time, could you take a look at the Palestine article for me? I popped in to it via the random page button and thought it looked like it had some liberal bias. I was just looking at the recent changes log, and realized that all of the liberal-sounding stuff are recent editions to the page in http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Palestine&curid=6412&diff=545847&oldid=433943 this diff. It looks like vandalism that should be reverted, but as I am new here, I figured I would ask someone with more experience. TGeary 22:36, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm afraid that I don't know enough about that to do much either. There was at least one edit I saw that I would consider unacceptable, but it's hard to say for the rest. I'm not even sure who here would know much about it. Philip J. Rayment 01:48, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I would but I'm a bit busy right now. Basically it's a charged issue and some of the things that were originally in the article were probably overboard, but some of the information removed now should not have been. Not everything he says though is out of bounds. On our site the final product will probably tilt towards the original version, but not completely. Learn together 02:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks guys. The current version looks a lot better, and is better than I could have done. TGeary 17:24, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

AlanE

I had blocked him for this comment. "If the senior people at Cp would actually spend a bit of time at "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" doing the chores necessary to maintain it as an encyclopedia instead of indulging their petty ideologies this sort of thing wouldn't happen." is an insult in my book to all the senior editors. It's one thing to point out neglecting one's duties, it's another to insult senior editors' contributions as "petty" and "ideology". If he feels that way, he's probably better off somewhere else. -Foxtrot 14:14, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Generally you would be right, but we try to look beyond immediate statements to the larger picture. For us the overriding question is whether or not the the person is making positive contributions to the project. In the case of AlanE he has a long history of updating articles and so we honor that. He also writes from Australia, and does so at times when most others would rather be sleeping, so he has shown a dedication in that area as well. AlanE once had blocking rights, but left the project for an extended period of time, apparently with a medical condition. Apparently, that condition also sometimes causes him to be in pain. All things considered, we prefer to meet our contributors where they are at and choose encouragement and understanding over blocking where it is possible -- and this is one of those cases. Learn together 14:51, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the support Learn together, and thank you Philip. AlanE 16:39, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Apologies, then, Alan. I was not aware of your extended history here. -Foxtrot 17:01, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Foxtrot, your block comment was "Liberal namecalling: "petty ideologies" of senior editors", yet I see above that you've not mentioned him calling anybody names, which, of course, is because he didn't. Yes, he did criticise, but criticism in itself is not a valid block reason. And yes, the use of the word "petty" is an insult, but as Learn together has pointed out, AlanE has made considerable contributions over an extended period. No, I don't consider "ideologies" an insult; not only do we all have ideologies, but pretty well every senior editor here concentrates on their ideologies to the exclusion of all else. So apart from the opinionated word "petty", his criticism was essentially correct. How many senior editors can you name who spend much time "doing the chores necessary to maintain it as an encyclopedia"? As for his extended history, one only has to look at his contributions list. Philip J. Rayment 19:20, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Thanks again, Philip. I have accepted Foxtrot's apologies on his talk page. (And I will try and curb some of my more sarky comments in future.) AlanE 19:27, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

The "Liberal namecalling" part was only because that was the closest match out of the dropdown menu for blocking offenses. The "liberal" part was not accurate, but the "petty ideologies" part did rub me the wrong way that night, since it seemed to be trivializing many editors' work. I considered such flippant remarks to be closest to "namecalling" since "abusive behavior" is no longer an option and while "other reason" would have been okay, namecalling was close enough, especially once I provided the details. But this is nitpicking. I have stated the reason for the block (and did so in the blocking comments), Learn together even said it would normally be a suitable reason for a block (this was only for a month, remember), and now I have apologized for jumping on a longtime contributor and he has accepted my apology. It seems that the issue is now resolved. As for your question How many senior editors can you name who spend much time "doing the chores necessary to maintain it as an encyclopedia"?, I'm going to stay far away from opening that can of worms. -Foxtrot 02:48, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Your censorship of my criticism

is totally out of order. And why am I not one to speak of respect? I shall speak of respect, and to whomever I choose, and you are certainly not immune. Bugler 07:46, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Because you don't show it. It was your comment that was out of order, so I removed it, and you will not reinstate it. Clear? Philip J. Rayment 09:18, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Bugler, I've seen you remove talk page comments, as well. Corry 09:43, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Including ones with that show no disrespect whatsoever. HelpJazz 11:13, 3 November 2008 (EST)

My comment was accurate and well in order, Phil. Who are you to suppose that you are above criticism? You are not the Pope; you are not the Lord High Pooh-Bah, and when you behave badly, as you have been, I will take you to task. How dare you speak to Andy in the way you do? It is absolutely shameful. And your action in having the presumptuousness to censor his talk page - not yours, please take note - is breathtaking in its casual insolence. You are subject to criticism, whether you like it or not, and you might even benefit from it were you to show an iota of humility. Your bullying actions in censoring and threatening me and the tone of your last post here show that your mask is slipping. Clear? Bugler 11:33, 3 November 2008 (EST)

I suppose that there is no Pope, no Lord High Pooh-Bah, on Conservapedia at all - so Andy isn't exempt from critique, neither. That's why Philip J. Rayment could dare [to] speak to Andy in the way he did... --BRichtigen 12:52, 3 November 2008 (EST)

I'm sure a side-by-side comparison of every single bullying, threatening post of Philip's next to the same from Bugler would settle this matter. Expose Philip's deceit and such like. Aziraphale 16:05, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Bugler, no, your comment was not accurate and well in order. You said that his position has been made "abundantly clear", and yet he had not addressed some of the concerns raised. And I do not suppose that I'm above criticism, but you seem to think that Andy is, as most of the rest of your post was basically telling me that I shouldn't question Andy. Plus, as I pointed out and others here have concurred, to accuse me of a lack of respect given your track record of not having respect for others is hypocritical. Philip J. Rayment 18:43, 3 November 2008 (EST)

In recent weeks, months even, the tone you have adopted towards Andy has been increasingly hostile and insubordinate - you know that, I know that. You clearly have issues with his leadership: if that is so, bring them into the open. If not - and if I am wrong - then tell me I'm wrong but prove it also by dropping the hostility. Bugler 18:48, 3 November 2008 (EST)

There are a number of things that I disagree with Andy on, and yes, in more recent times I've been more up front with questioning him on those—I am "bring[ing] them into the open", as you want. But "hostile and insubordinate"? I believe that's taking it too far. I try and remain respectful and civil at all times. I also suspect that you mistake my dislike of some of his claims for dislike of the man himself. I always try and keep the focus on the issues, rather than on the person, although of course this can be difficult when the disagreement is about how the person approaches the issue. But I still maintain that you are not the person to lecture me on this, given your gross disrespect of many people here, including me, an administrator. Andy's quite capable of taking action against me if he chooses, so there's no need for you to defend him from me. Philip J. Rayment 19:20, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Gross disrespect ?? Harsh words, old chum. I prefer straight-talking. As for I try and remain respectful and civil at all times, well, yes and no. You're not out and out abusive, but - perhaps you do not realise this - a contemptuous and (moderatedly) aggressive note has been appearing in your posts more and more of late (and not just those aimed at me). And yes, Andy can take action, but if he has any fault it is that his good nature leads him to be indulgent of those who attempt to attack him, and leads to his friends becoming perhaps over protective. Bugler 14:27, 4 November 2008 (EST)

I've known for a long time that I can come over as being harsh without meaning to (even when I try not to), so I won't dispute you on that. As for Andy being indulgent, I'll just say that I think the reality is more complex than that simple analysis, but I'll add that I've no problem with you or anybody else defending his position; it's when you try and stop the debate that I object. Philip J. Rayment 20:50, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Don't fight, my brethren! I love you both. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk)

Your timing could be a bit better Ed, I think this one is all but over! :-) Philip J. Rayment 20:57, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks for your quick attention

Many thanks for deleting that misspelt page so quickly - it was making me look rather foolish.--CPalmer 07:24, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks also for the tip re {{db}} - I'll know next time.--CPalmer 07:30, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Hello

You're a kindly soul Phillip, so could you explain this thing I keep seeing under the block reasons about not using one's initials? Will I have to recreate this account? Thanks in advance. --Wikinterpreter

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Are you referring to people being told to use their real name and initial? That is something that some administrators tell people who cause trouble. If you don't cause trouble, your existing name is fine. If you decide that you want to change it (some do), post a request on Andy's talk page and provide the name that you'd like to change it to. This avoids having to start a new account. Philip J. Rayment 20:08, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Question

Not sure if you are the right person but you seem more down to earth xD How does one go about reminding users with ban rights to follow the rules or w/e? Or *shudders* do you sorta just do a handstand, quack like a duck and walk away, knowing your the more sane?? ¯\(0_o)/¯ Ema 21:43, 7 November 2008 (EST)

"w/e"?

You can tell me the specifics so that I can follow it up.

Philip J. Rayment 22:17, 7 November 2008 (EST)

"w/e" is an abbreviation for "whatever" LiamG 22:24, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Ta. All I could think of was "weekend", which didn't make sense there. Philip J. Rayment 22:56, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Sorry sorry xP bad habits die hard. I snuggled with my kitty last night and fell asleep at the keyboard! :D I was referring to the discussion[9] where Conservative is trolling the talk page instead of addressing his ideological edits to the article... the stupid Hitler picture is still there, at the top of the article. D: his history of locking pages to end any opposition is purely his way of forcing opinion (and really bad style) into articles. Oh, plus!, there are blog articles like Life and Doctrine which have no encyclopeedic worth, they were edited by the blog owner (see the talk page!) and it gets deleted and remade so he can hide that little fact Ema 10:29, 8 November 2008 (EST) I'm new here and already run into high-ranking editors who keep breaking the rules!! sorry to bother you, its just annoying

Whilst Conservative may have failed to respond to all the points put on the Dawkins talk page, I'd hardly classify his comments as "trolling". I see that the Hitler picture has been moved, and I've now commented on that on the talk page. I agree that he locks pages too readily, but he's not breaking any rules in doing so, as you allege. The same applies to Life and Doctrine—no actual rules have been broken. Philip J. Rayment 00:40, 11 November 2008 (EST)

MiG-31

Thanks, Philip. That was the one thing I couldn't fix.--Frey 11:30, 8 November 2008 (EST)

I thought you might find this humorous and a similar thing happened at my university

conservative 21:53, 8 November 2008 (EST)

I don't trust you.

You bollocked me blocked me for 5 long years!
You promised me I could discuss the block on your talk page.
I tried to discuss the block and I was blocked from editing your talk page.
You are a liar!
JessIsFinished

I made no such promise. Perhaps you are confusing the standard instruction to discuss your block by e-mail with discussing it on my talk page? Philip J. Rayment 15:01, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Assistance needed

I am having problems with a sysop here, and not sure what to do about it. This was the comment left by Ed Poor on his edit about my own comments. I am trying to be respectful in disagreement. I am trying to remember that everyone comes at the world from differnet places, but nothing in Ed's tone suggests he is returning that favor. "(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Hate crime‎; 15:39 . . (+999) . . Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) (still trying to make contact with intelligent life form)" Since we were talking about disagreeing with how to read particular comments, and not with an article about aliens in space, I can only conclude that his comments are directed at me or other posters. Do you have a suggestion of how I should handle this? or should i just drop it and move on to some other area of interst? Thanks in advance. --JeanJacques 15:47, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I would take it as an attempt at humour—whether you think it not funny or in poor taste is up to you—and move on. Philip J. Rayment 20:17, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I sent an apology by private email. --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:48, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Reprieve of CompuHacker

I hope that you don't have cause to end up rueing your decision. Bugler 10:16, 11 November 2008 (EST)

So do I. But I'm not going to support a block on the basis of what might happen in the future, and we have a policy of not blocking for ideological edits. You provided no adequate justification of your block.

And talking of such things, I'm waiting on answers to two e-mails, and I know of two others who have protested blocks directly to you. How are you going on answering them?

Philip J. Rayment 06:51, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Dear Bugler, maybe Philip J. Rayment will have to rue his decision. The interesting thing is: When P. J. Rayment misplaces his trust, we all can see the consequences, and handle the outcome. When you, Bugler, misplace your mistrust the outcome is covered up, as a disappointed editor who got wrongly blocked for an eternity (and everything over a couple of months is an eternity on the web) has no voice at this site. How many are there whose enthusiasm was smashed by high-handed block comments? We don't know.

Therefore, P. J. Rayment's policy seems to be more sensible: we can revert the negative effects it may have sometimes, as we perceive those. The negative effects of your policy can't be encountered.

--BRichtigen 07:17, 12 November 2008 (EST)

On another note, Hiiiiii and thank you for your time. CompuHacker 14:22, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Time to go

In view of your treasonable remarks, your time to depart has come. I advocate the merciful option, the equivalent of the bottle of whisky and the service revolver, in recognition of your past service in debunking Evolutionism. Better that than being publicly stripped of adminship and blocked. But, after what you have said, go you must. Bugler 06:22, 12 November 2008 (EST)

What are you talking about? Philip J. Rayment 06:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

He's talking about the purpose of this web-site is not to bother with the truth with which you emblazoned Andy's talk page. I've blocked your account, while you think over whether your purpose for being here is consonant with our purpose for existing. Do we have anything in common? --Ed Poor ^Talk 07:18, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I've unblocked myself because your reason for blocking me was incorrect. I did not call anybody (or anything) names. Instead, I made an accusation, and with good reason. And on what grounds do you accuse me of "liberal" namecalling? If you don't agree with what I said, the proper approach is to discuss it with me, not to use your blocking power to silence criticism. Philip J. Rayment 07:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)

That's clearly not why Bugler advocated that Philip commit wiki-suicide. Bugler has had repeated confrontations with editors who require such things as citations to back up facts, and he's tired of Philip's tireless crusade for the truth, even if the truth is not always something we like.

I think it's rather telling, here, that Philip, an editor who has contributed volumes in the area of creationism among many other conservative topics and a trusted and even-handed (almost to a fault) sysop of well over a year in good standing, was the one who was blocked, and not the relatively new and largely polemic editor who is the subject numerous vitriolic disputes, whos blocks are constantly question and overturned, and who advocated that Philip metaphorically get drunk and kill himself with a service revolver. HelpJazz 11:54, 12 November 2008 (EST)

It's rather telling that HelpJazz leaps in flat-footedly to betray an ignorance of the metaphor I was using, advocating that Philip do the decent thing rather than have to be prised away. My blocks - I presume that I am the relatively new and largely polemic editor - are constantly question and overturned because I am the subject of a campaign of harrassment and intimidation by a Liberal faction within Conservapedia who are aiming to destroy the project and who resent my energetic actions to enhance our conservative credentials. Philip has contributed much in the area of creatuionism. I specifically drew attention to this on Philip's behalf - which HelpJazz omits to mention - and it is the reason why I think he should be offered a dignified exit, which HelpJazz appears to decry. I would add that it has long been time for HelpJazz, too, to go. Bugler 12:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I'm a pretty avid fan of this show. I've been left with a cliff-hanger, episode after episode, wherein HelpJazz and Philip are called "liberal," "dishonest," and numerous other disparagements by Bugler, only to cut to the credits just when the evidence is about to be revealed that will condemn the traitorous scum.

It's brilliant writing, each time I'm left wanting more. Eventually, though, the audience will expect, you know... proof. Aziraphale 12:20, 12 November 2008 (EST) <-Hi, Bohdan...

Oh Az, your humorous response has edit conflicted away my truthful but overly sarcastic and likely-to-get-me-banned retort to Bugler's comment. Thank you, yet again. HelpJazz 12:28, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I don't doubt that it's overly-sarcastic, not so sure about the first bit. And if you're banned, you can just do like your protector and unban yourself. So let's have it, HelpJazz. Bugler 12:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Philip is my protector? I'd check that assumption. HelpJazz 12:56, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Hey, Az: lol + giggle! --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)

To quote my favorite movie - "Hey, is that [my] fan?" Aziraphale 13:17, 12 November 2008 (EST) <-It's 'That Thing You Do'...

I don't think I've ever had so many posts added to my page in such a short time (including ones below; 15 in the space of 161 minutes)! Responding to various people:

"That's clearly not why Bugler advocated that Philip commit wiki-suicide.": If you are referring to Ed Poor's answer of what Bugler's opening post of this section was about, I think Ed is probably right. At the time I asked Bugler what he was talking about, I hadn't seen his reply to that on Andy's talk page.

"It's rather telling that HelpJazz leaps in flat-footedly to betray an ignorance of the metaphor I was using,...": I don't see any ignorance here. HelpJazz refers to it as being metaphoric. If you are saying that it is a known metaphor, then I'm ignorant of it also. But then standard metaphors tend to be culture-specific, and we are both from different countries than you, so perhaps that explains it.

"...I am the subject of a campaign of harassment and intimidation by a Liberal faction within Conservapedia who are aiming to destroy the project and who resent my energetic actions to enhance our conservative credentials."": Why just (or especially) you? I'd say that it's not just because you want to "enhance our conservative credentials", as most of us want to do that. Rather, it's your (euphemistically-stated) "energetic actions". That is, you are not harassed by a "Liberal" faction (I hope you aren't including me in that category) simply because you are a conservative, but because of they manner by which you conduct yourself. Who on Conservapedia is the biggest threat to the "liberal" viewpoint? I guess that opinions on that differ, but at least one committed evolutionist elsewhere thinks I am (if I remember accurately), because I argue the case for creation so well (logically and accurately)! So why it is that you are the one getting harrassed if I'm the bigger threat? Because "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger". What Conservapedia needs is more sensible argument and less power-tripping.

And finally Aziraphale, I'm also a fan of your comments.

Philip J. Rayment 21:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Philip J. Rayment is intelligent and fair and is the Sysop I most respect at this wiki. -- Taj 07:03, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks Taj. I appreciate it. Philip J. Rayment 07:10, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Sorry for the Prosaic Question...

... but are you who I would coordinate with re: categories? I feel a burst coming on, what with uncategorized pages breaching 1000. Believe it or not, the last time I got the urge I was still guided by TK. Merci, Aziraphale 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I was about to ask the same thing. Category:Movies contains several subcategories that seemed misnamed. For instance, Category:Comedy should either be renamed Category:Comedy movies (to distinguish it from Category:Comedy books), or else it should be added under Category:Books as well.

Category renames take some work, I'm willing to do the work, but I want some community input before I go spamming RecentChanges, so that I don't have to make yet another change later.

Is this the best place to have these discussions? --Interiot 13:32, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Unfortunately, some categories were made that were not, as you see, labeled in a form that works in a multi-topic database structure. Philip may want this conversation moved, but proper upkeep of categories is an area of importance to our project. Learn together 13:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Interiot - are you kidding? Spamming RecentChanges is the only reason I categorize! Aziraphale 13:56, 12 November 2008 (EST) <-lookout folks, he's in a mood...

We could create Conservapedia:Categories for discussion to discuss category renames/merges/deletions. Any objections? --Interiot 14:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)

For some reason MediaWiki (at least as used here) won't let one move category pages, so deleting them and creating new ones is the only way to go. As for changing the categories on articles, EdBot can take all the hard work out of that.

I've no objections to creating Conservapedia:Categories for discussion (or would Conservapedia:Categories be better?). Personally, I've only slowly come kicking and screaming to understanding categories, and I'm probably not really one to offer much of an expert opinion on what should be and what shouldn't. But if you need help with administrator-only tasks like deleting the redundant category pages, I'm willing to help.

Philip J. Rayment 21:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I'm sorry to be obtuse, but I think maybe I didn't ask my question clearly. I just want to categorize the 1000 or so articles that are currently uncategorized. Occasionally a question will come up, should I ask it here or somewhere else? OR... does this Edbot thing automatically categorize things? That would be super-cool, but I'm unaware of this capability. Aziraphale 11:31, 13 November 2008 (EST) <-back to his old tricks...

I gather that EdBot is basically a string replacer. No, it's not a categoriser. I mentioned it in reference to Interiot's comment about category renamings taking some work, for which he gave the example of renaming Category:Comedy to Category:Comedy movies. Clearly, however, it's no good if you want to split a category into two separate categories (e.g. some to Category:Comedy books) or add a new category, but it can still help in many situations. As for where you ask about what category to assign, then no, I don't think my talk page is the place for that, and that's why a separate page for that would be appropriate. Philip J. Rayment 14:59, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Duplicate pages for deletion processes

There seem to be duplicate pages for each deletion process:

AFD: main page	Conservapedia:Articles for deletion	Conservapedia:Desk/afd
AFD: template	{{Delete Notice}}	{{Delete}}
AFD: category	Category:Articles proposed for deletion	Category:Deletion candidates
copyright	Conservapedia:Copying	Conservapedia:Desk/Copyright
speedy deletion	Category:Speedy deletion candidates	Conservapedia:Desk/speedy

I think the right ones should be merged into the left ones. I can't fix this myself because Conservapedia:Desk is protected, and the AFD categories and AFD templates are protected. --Interiot 14:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)

The deletion process is a quagmire that I've long been avoiding getting stuck in, although I agree that it needs sorting out. I think, however, that the ones in the right-hand column are mostly the newer ones, and therefore should be the ones kept. But that's ignoring the merits of each; it may in fact be better to go the way you suggest, I don't know. I'm not trying to get out of this, but perhaps we'll leave this here for a few days and see if anybody else wants to chip in their two cents' worth.

In the meantime, how are the fixes to the edit counter coming? :-)

Philip J. Rayment 21:22, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Okay, yeah. I've settled into my new apartment, but I'm probably going to be pretty busy this next week or two. I'll work on it right after that though. --Interiot 09:50, 14 November 2008 (EST)

In my opinion, while I like the idea of an AfD process, in practice it doesn't work very well. So, if we set down very specific rules and have a sysop willing to enforce them (I expect that will be you, Philip ;-) ) then I think we can narrow it down to {{speedy}} and {{delete}}. If we don't want to make more rules, then I say get rid of everything but {{speedy}} and perhaps {{db}} (which wasn't included in the list above, by the way; further proof that this is a bit of a mess). HelpJazz 00:19, 13 November 2008 (EST)

You don't need both {{db}} and {{speedy}} because they overlap - {{db}} is the same as {{speedy}}, except that it allows you to fill in a reason other than the ones listed. Ideally I think that {{speedy}} should therefore be scrapped and {{db}} kept; the only problem with that is that I've seen people using {{speedy}}, so they would have to be alerted to the change somehow.--CPalmer 07:23, 13 November 2008 (EST)

I think it makes more sense to keep {{speedy}} and add the reason parameter to it. Philip J. Rayment 07:35, 13 November 2008 (EST)

I agree if that's an option - certainly the name 'speedy' is more user-friendly.--CPalmer 08:06, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks

Thanks for the block just now. Didn't know if there was anyone on patrol.--CPalmer 08:52, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks for the unblock

I still haven't been able to find out why I was blocked in the first place.LowKey 09:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Requested edit

Category:Maintenance and Category:Articles proposed for deletion are protected. Could you either unprotect them, or make these edits?

• Put a {{Category redirect|Category:Conservapedia Maintenance}} on Category:Maintenance
• Move Category:Articles proposed for deletion to Category:Conservapedia Maintenance instead

Thanks. --Interiot 15:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

I've unprotected them. Philip J. Rayment 18:32, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Parolees

If you don't want the announcement that User:BRichtigen is on parole to be on his user page, fine. But that doesn't change that I'm still paroling him for the month. Also, I have put parole announcements up before, with User:TerryH's permission. It's a job that should be done and I'm happy to fill those shoes. -Foxtrot 17:26, 15 November 2008 (EST)

It's nice to have at least one who reads the stuff that I write! --BRichtigen 17:33, 15 November 2008 (EST)

I was unaware that you'd had TerryH's permission before to put someone on parole, but if that was a specific case, then doing it with an administrator's permission is not the same as doing it on your own volition. Blocking rights are supposed to be for taking vandals out quickly, not as a de-facto administrator, although I don't want to criticise you for that given that this rule is ignored even at the highest levels. Further, BRichtigen has been hounded lately, and deserves to be left alone to get on with his editing, which is another reason that I oppose him being put on parole (it's not just the notice on his user page that I disagree with). However, I will consider changing my mind if you give me good solid evidence of a good reason to do so, and something vague like "being disruptive" is not likely to cut it. Philip J. Rayment 17:56, 15 November 2008 (EST)

I had TerryH's permission to put User:Saxplayer on parole. After that, I also put User:JakobL on parole and he turned out to be a vandal, so it was important that we kept an eye on him. I apologize if I overstretched my authority, but with Geo.plrd unfortunately not as frequent an editor as he used to be, I think someone else needs to take up the reins of the parole system. And since many sysops seem to be overworked already, I volunteered myself for that duty.

As for BRichtigen, I don't believe he is being hounded. A respectful user does not get blocked six times by three different senior editors within only a month of being on the site. His disruptive edits:

*the second page he edited was the Desk\Abuse, stirring up old leaves about accusations of mistreated editors

*I did not appreciate his sarcastic edit comments on the Graz article, but kept silent at the time

*[10] "I don't know whether my points were so garbled - or only your renarration of them is.", a swipe at User:RSchlafly.

and this is what I hold him accountable for. I think there is already ample evidence of what Ed Poor has to say in this regard. Individually, these are not edits that I would block him for, but in sum, for a new editor, they draw attention and that is why he is on parole. -Foxtrot 07:23, 16 November 2008 (EST)

It would be dangerous to judge the conduct of new editors based on how many times they get blocked. It is really not clear what might get one blocked on CP. It certainly APPEARS clear, but if you look over the list of blocks & check some of the contributions that earned the blocks, the rules are applied in a similar manner to the way a hammer is applied for piano-tuning. The sysops themselves seem to have a lot of their time wasted on determining whether editors really should have been blocked, and unblocking those that should've have been.LowKey 07:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Foxtrot, I appreciate that you've taken the trouble to respond in detail, something that I find some others unwilling to do.

I would dispute your first contention; BRichtigen's case shows that respectful editors do get blocked six times by three different senior editors.

Further, rather than just looking superficially at the number of blocks, I'm taking into account whether the blocks were justified. And in fact the blocks are a large part of the "hounding" I referred to. So in effect your response is that "no he's not being hounded, as shown by the amount of hounding [blocking] he's had"!

I don't know which six of his seven blocks you are counting, but one of the blocks was an automatic one by Guard Dog, incurred for the vandalism-reversal he was doing. So if you discount this clearly-inappropriate block, there's only two people left blocking him.

Not only that, but apart from his first two short blocks, every single block was reverted by an administrator on the grounds that it was not justified. Where does that leave your case?

I don't see anything wrong with the other three examples you gave. In the case of Photoelectric effect, he was no more having a go at RSchafly (who, you will note, is one who lifted a block, so obviously doesn't hold it against BRichtigen) than at himself, as he makes the same speculation about himself.

Philip J. Rayment 08:30, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Maybe the reversions are in themselves a form of hounding, of the blocking editors. Such things happen. Bugler 08:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

That's theoretically possible, but in that case you'd need to argue that two different editors were hounding two other different editors, which is less likely, plus that still ignores the facts of the individual cases and whether the blocks really were justified or not. Philip J. Rayment 08:46, 16 November 2008 (EST)

First of all, I want to thank all of you who took some time to argue for and against my case. Here's my reply to Foxtrot's points

• A long block-log seems to serve as something like a lightning-rod, regardless of the quality of the entries
• It irked me that governor Schwarzenegger was the only one to be mentioned in connection with Graz. Granted, he's a person of national importance and a celebrity for his movies. But he wasn't even born in Graz, and there are other outstanding historical figures (Kepler!, Nernst!, Boltzmann!, Schroedinger!, Fischer von Erlach) who were so much more connected to Graz than A. Schwarzenegger is.
• I had lengthy discussions with R. Schlafly, which contributed - IMO - interesting points to the corresponding articles. We have somewhat different opinions about the contribution of various historical figures to the sciences, but I hope that we both enjoyed our debates. I did for sure!
• I've been sensible to blocks from the very beginning - even before I became an editor. (I joint just to correct the spelling of Johann Strauss, it was a mistake which was painful to any German speaking reader - and got somewhat sucked in this wiki thereafter). I won't apologize for contributing to the Desk/Abuse section, I'll keep doing so in the future - even if the only reaction is that it is counted against me.

--BRichtigen 09:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Reply to Philip: I'll give you that the one block by the Guard Dog was not a legit block, but TerryH's unblock comment does not exactly sound apologetic. As for the remaining blocks, I'll note that except for one unblock by RSchlafly, all the remaining unblocks were done by you. They were not done by the original editors who blocked him, in fact Ed Poor re-blocked him shortly after you and RSchlafly undid the blocks. So it seems to be some senior editors' opinion versus another's on the justifications of those blocks. That's where this analysis leaves my case, so since it seems to be unresolved to everyone's satisfaction, that's why he's on parole. We'll see if he can be a good boy in that time.

Reply to BRichtigen: The names could have been added to the Graz article without the sarcasm. You had just created the article and I was helping out by adding my own nugget of information I know about that small city that I doubt many people outside of Europe have heard of. Wikis are places for people to appreciate other editor's contributions of factual content. -Foxtrot 02:42, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Sorry if my sarcasm annoyed you. But it's like coming from Baltimore to Europe and everyone tells you: Hey, Baltimore, isn't that the place were David Hasselhoff was born? --BRichtigen 07:19, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Has anyone else famous come from Baltimore? :-P -Foxtrot 23:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Foxtrot, TerryH's unblock comment was unfortunate, but it related to something that you couldn't know about (and was unfortunate because BRichtigen couldn't know about it either), and was not an indication that there was any mistrust there.

I never said that the unblocks were done by the original blocking editors. I said that they were reverted by administrators on the grounds that they were invalid. And that bit I've emphasised is the important point, and a point that you've not disputed. If you are going to take a position on this, you need to look deeper than just "editors' opinions" and see who is correct.

Your analysis still comes down to arguing that he's got to be watched because you don't understand whether he's done anything wrong or not. That is illogical. I said that you can't put him on parole and that stands. He is not on parole. Period.

Philip J. Rayment 09:09, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Philip, all these points were in addition to the discussions with Ed Poor that merited him at least some of his bans. But fine, since parole designation is officially a sysop capability and Geo.plrd is not around to weigh in, I'll accept that he is not officially on parole. I'm going to still keep an eye on him though. -Foxtrot 23:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks

Thanks for your advice with the dinosaur article. I would very much appreciate it if you could cast a quick glance over the other articles I've written and see if I've made any other elementary mistakes?--PhillipM 08:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)

See the changes I've made. Don't put more than one blank line above or below headings, or anywhere else unless you specifically want a bigger-than-normal space between paragraphs, use a spelling checker (and proofread your edits, as spelling checkers won't pick up everything), use a "References" heading or similar for references, and sign talk-page posts (type four tildes or there's a button on the edit box toolbar—oh hang on, you've remembered that this time!). And if you know what's appropriate (this is something I didn't do), add at least one category to each article. But otherwise, keep up the good work! Philip J. Rayment 09:17, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks again. I was watching your edits and I've tried to put some of the advice into practice. For some reason I find it really hard to remember to sign things :) --PhillipM 09:19, 16 November 2008 (EST)

"if he's genuine"

Thanks so much, Philip, for calling me a liar on TK's talk page. I really appreciate being the recipient of unprovoked insults. I suppose I should be glad you didn't threaten me the way you did TK. Are you genuine, by the way? Not the genuine 'reasonable old PJR' you pose as, at any rate. Bugler 03:47, 17 November 2008 (EST)

I did not call you a liar nor insult you. Philip J. Rayment 09:14, 17 November 2008 (EST)

I'm (almost) speechless. "Hi Bugler, I think you may well not be a real editor but a parodist troll. But hey, don't take it to heart, I'm not insulting you or implying that you're mendacious in any way." Bugler 10:27, 17 November 2008 (EST)

It's clear that you have no case when you have to make up the evidence. Philip J. Rayment 19:30, 17 November 2008 (EST)

I have to paraphrase,because you ignore the evidence when it is placed in front of you. I thought it was emus that are native to Australia, not ostriches. Pay attention, friend Philip: you did make that accusation. And, in denying that you have been presented with the evidence, you are lying. You know that I am taking issue with what you said on TK's page; the quote is in the section header; you said, "Bugler, if he's genuine", impugning my good faith and truthfulness. How much clearer do you want it?Bugler 07:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I do not ignore evidence.

Saying "Bugler, if he's genuine" does suggest the possibility that you are not. It does not constitute calling you a liar.

Philip J. Rayment 07

46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

So if I were to write "User:PurposeofDebate, if he's not a bullying, closet-Liberal old fool", it wouldn't constitute an insult, right? You'd make a good political spin doctor, wuith your habit of snide little smears and your oily way of denying responsibility for them. Bugler 09:56, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Well being suspected of "not being genuine" is as bad or worse than being called a liar, with all due respect, Philip. I'm sure soon someone will suspect that my other edit was sarcastic instead of genuinely admiring and accordingly block me. Good intent should always be assumed! --Europeo 08:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Bugler, if you were genuine, then you could have ignored Philip's comment because you knew you were genuine. Causing a big deal out of it just make you seem even more suspicious. (I'm not saying you aren't genuine) ~Beth^Talk2ME 07:59, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Been busy

I seem to have been rather busy lately, and/or Conservapedia has been busy (both, I think), and I'm rather behind in responding to various matters here and in e-mails, sorry. Philip J. Rayment 09:19, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Obama

Please desist immediately from you unilateral and unapproved actions. Bugler 09:39, 18 November 2008 (EST)

My actions are not unilateral nor unapproved, as they have the support of five other senior administrators. Philip J. Rayment 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I no longer have any faith in your word, so name them. Bugler 09:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I for one. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 11:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Bugler, knock it off. If you can't discuss your differences of opinion with out personal remarks, maybe you better leave the subject of Barack Obama alone. Your other work is excellent. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:35, 18 November 2008 (EST)

A partial list has been posted by another user on the Barack Obama talk page. If Andy wants the remaining names, I can supply them, although he has received copies of the e-mails with their comments, so in theory he already knows. I will also point out that although Andy tries to marginalise the relevance, he doesn't dispute that the claim is true. Philip J. Rayment 21:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

You have admonished users, Philip, about continuing to argue their point, once you have made up your mind. In this case, since the site is Mr. Schlafly's, and he is a Bureaucrat, perhaps the better part of valor would be to leave the Obama article alone now. It is more than obvious you are not going to change his thinking on this, right? --₮K^/Talk 21:35, 18 November 2008 (EST)

"You have admonished users, Philip, about continuing to argue their point, once you have made up your mind.": I have? Where?

I think the valorous thing would be to stick up for the truth, which is required by Commandment 1.

Philip J. Rayment 01:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Please, my Great Uncle is long dead, lol. --₮K^/Talk 01:12, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Oh most patient and eloquent defender of YEC someone has ever encountered......

Oh most patient and eloquent defender of YEC someone has ever encountered......

When are you going to unleash your Human evolution article?  :) conservative 21:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)

EZine in Dance

Hi Philip. I seem to remember you knowing something about the spam filter. I was trying to fix up Dance, but it said the one reference that is currently split causes the spam filter. Is there something wrong with that site that I don't know about, or is there something I can do to fix it. (I know there are problems going on elsewhere, so obviously there's no rush to answer me. Shame about HelpJazz though.) LiamG 21:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I gather that this has now been fixed? Philip J. Rayment 01:13, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Actually, there just seems to be a jury-rigged workaround: "EzineArticles.com, Can You Appreciate the Art of Ballet?, by Jeffrey Meier http://ezinearticlesDOTcom/?Can-You-Appreciate-the-Art-of-Ballet?&id=294632" [emphasis and nowiki mine]. I haven't searched around the site, so I don't know if there's an established problem with that particular site, or if it's some weird glitch of the system. LiamG 13:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I did the work-around (at least the current version). It's not ideal. The spam filter says it doesn't like ezinearticles.com - I have no idea why this would be a trigger. --Hsmom 08:29, 20 November 2008 (EST)

I've left a message on CPWebmaster's talk page about this. Philip J. Rayment 08:42, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Question

Before I get "busted" for defending myself with the 90/10 rule, or the "you don't agree" rule, whatever that rule is - do you know if Bharlan is a sysop? He's decided that since i opposed the word Negro on a page, he's making it his job to "out" me as a liberal, by simply pointing out when I disagree with others. Fine and dandy, but I'm concerned about defending myself if he can use it to justify a block. Thanks for any help. --JeanJacques 21:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

BHarlan is not a sysop and has not been granted any other rights. Philip J. Rayment 01:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

User:Saxplayer

I see that this user is on parole, but is active on CP. If you have evidence that he is a parodist, then he should be given a block of appropriate length. If, however, he is not a parodist, then you ought not to be making baseless remarks. Either way, I think that your excision of his remark from Andy's talk page is unjustifiable. Could you please explain your reasons for the reversion? Bugler 06:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I leave blocking of parolees to the administrator who put them on parole. My reasons for the deletion were in the edit comment. Philip J. Rayment 07:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)

It didn't strike me as substanceless therefore I propose to rstore it; besides, we should only delete edits from other peoples' talk pages if they are abusive, obscene or damaging. Bugler 07:55, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Okay, but don't restore it to the middle of someone else's post as it originally was. Philip J. Rayment 08:05, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Controversial template

TK has suggested I contact you about the {{Controversial}} template. I suggested on the Obama talk page that a template like it might help avoid some of the endless arguing that is going on there. However, there's a problem with the template's code and the page is locked, though it says on the talk page what needs doing.

Could you fix the code, and maybe make the wording a bit more diplomatic so as not to put off new users? I do think that if this template is ever going to be needed, the Obama page is a prime case. Many thanks.--CPalmer 16:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I've fixed the bug, although I'm not sure that I agree with putting the template on the Obama page. I also haven't changed the wording. What do you suggest? Philip J. Rayment 20:53, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Why not changing the headline Obama will likely be the first Muslim President into Will Obama be the first Muslim President?. No need for a template, and the pro & cons could be added thereafter. --BRichtigen 16:57, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Because Andy won't accept anything that doesn't make Obama look like a Muslim, at least up the top. Philip J. Rayment 20:53, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Philip, I slapped the "Controversial" template onto the talk page, as I know Andy doesn't like such on the article itself. Thanks for fixing it!. --₮K^/Talk 23:38, 19 November 2008 (EST)

So where does the link in the template to "discussing" go? Philip J. Rayment 05:27, 20 November 2008 (EST)

It doesn't go anywhere. I propose creating a {{controversialtalk}} template that says:

This talk page is about a controversial topic, and many of the issues have already been discussed at length. Please read this page and the archive pages before contributing, to check that your concerns have not already been answered.

That ought to stop some of the circularity at least.--CPalmer 05:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:-)

I've been meaning to say for some time - I really appreciate the way you conduct yourself here. Calm, level-headed, and committed to the truth even if it doesn't further your view of things. You are honest and chivalrous. Don't let those who are not get you down - it's not worth it. --Hsmom 09:06, 20 November 2008 (EST)

An Apology

My apology for the sparring match we had some months ago. You probably don't remember, but I feel I was being confrontational for the sake of being confrontational, and wanted to apologise. KarlJaeger 13:37, 22 November 2008 (EST)

I don't particularly remember, but apology accepted anyway! Philip J. Rayment 07:28, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Barack Obama article

It's probably not a good idea to get into a revert war. Jallen 21:32, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Does that apply to Andy too? Philip J. Rayment 21:33, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Well the chain of authority seems to be that editors may not revert sysop/admin work, whilst sysop/admins may not revert higher (bureaucrat) positions. Jallen 21:36, 23 November 2008 (EST)

I have a note on my user page that my edits are not sacrosanct and can be altered by other editors. As administrators, we enforce the rules, we don't decide the truth. That is exceeding our authority. Philip J. Rayment 00:57, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Jallen raises an issue I have been discussing with other sysops. I do think it would be helpful if it was clearly stated if Sysops can revert Bureaucrats and if that is not the case, I think we should have an appeal process. Unless we state that bureaucrats are infallible, I do think an appeal process is necessary.  :) conservative 22:15, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Obama

The discussions on the Obama page are long and frequently venture off topic (you bieng a liberal). So I ask here: what exactly is it that you attempting to do in the article itself? Is there a line or section you want removed? HenryS 21:53, 25 November 2008 (EST)

I would imagine it's these sections that he'd like to see removed. LiamG 21:56, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Yes, those sections for starters. Philip J. Rayment 22:02, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Since discussion isn't really working, why don't you propose some sort of straw poll like at wikipedia [11]? To see how many established editors agree with you? HenryS 22:06, 25 November 2008 (EST)

The Barack Obama talk page already has a list of administrators who agree with me (in general terms at least), and I know of a couple of other senior administrators who agree with me. No administrator (barring Andy) has disagreed with me. Andy knows this, but that doesn't convince him either (which is why Conservative's last edit on this page is relevant), so a straw poll is not going to make any difference, except to encourage various socks, parodists, and sycophants to add their views and thereby muddy the waters. Philip J. Rayment 21:42, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Notice how I said established. Could we not limit it to administrators and users with a certain amount of edits? HenryS 22:11, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Hmmm, I did miss "established". I don't like judging things like this on the basis of numbers of edits, as that is affected not just by how "established" they are, but whether they use the preview button, whether they are writing a few long articles/talk page comments or lots of small ones, etc. Also, as I said, I doubt that any sort of straw poll will make any difference anyway. Philip J. Rayment 00:36, 27 November 2008 (EST)

• Maybe one reason for not doing so is that Conservapedia has always rejected the idea of a "mobocracy", from the very start. Conservapedia has, from the very beginning as well, rejected the the byzantine, bureaucratic ways of Wikipedia. Boards, commissions, polls, are liberal-like in their reliance on opinion rather than common sense. --₮K^/Talk 22:39, 25 November 2008 (EST)

TK, by Mobocracy you mean democracy right? Anyways I thought i'd draw PJR's attention to Alexander Downer being listed as a liberal on the professor values page. ASchafly seems to like him there so im not sure what you can do about it...--HanG 18:09, 26 November 2008 (EST)

One of the principle reasons the United States is the worlds oldest enduring democracy is that we aren't. We are a Representative Democracy. Pure democracy, a mobocracy, historically descend to chaos and disruption. Such as what you see daily, dozens of times daily, on Wikipedia. --₮K^/Talk 18:14, 26 November 2008 (EST)

I guess the distinction that you are trying to make is between letting just anybody participate in the decision making and letting those that have some claim to be representative be involved. In that regard, I guess I agree with you, and that's why I am also posting above that a straw poll lets every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Sock have a say. (On the other hand, the idea of a straw poll is to discover what the people think, not to make a decision.)

However, the problem here is that we don't have even a representative democracy, but a dictatorship (even if you want to cell it a benevolent one), in that one person is making the decisions and those that would otherwise be considered the "representatives" are having their views ignored (in that they are not being taken into account).

Your first sentence of your last post is not clear: "we aren't" what? Aren't a "mobocracy"? Assuming that's what you mean, then you appear to be claiming that the U.S. is the world's oldest "enduring" democracy. I'm not sure either what "enduring" means in this context, but I take it to mean continuous and/or still operating.

That particular claim is very much disputed, and it appears that the definition of "democracy" is the key. I've long understood the Isle of Man to have the oldest continuous democracy, but although they have the oldest continuous parliament (dating back to 979), it seems that it doesn't count because not everyone always got a vote. Britannica lists Iceland as the oldest continuous democracy, although another source said that was the oldest parliament, starting in 930, but not continuous. Further claims are based on everyone, including women, getting a vote, which New Zealand claims to be the first (1893, vs. 1920 in the U.S.), but allegedly the Isle of Man got that in 1881! There are even more claimants that this, as can be seen here (or here if that didn't work as it didn't for me). One comment there was that "America frequently claims to be but this is because they define democracy so narrowly and in their own image such that on their criteria they're the worlds only democracy and on any other criteria they still aren't and never have been."

Philip J. Rayment 21:42, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Why not have a straw poll on a conservapedia page for the Obama issue that is Sysop only. I personally would like to know more precisely what the Sysops believe about the Obama article. I suggest having a Obama article straw poll with multiple questions. Let me know if you do it. I would participate. conservative 05:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Okay, let's meet at Conservapedia:Obama straw poll, a protected page but visible to all. Let everyone watch as we sysops discuss the issue (like a symposium, but with no interruptions from the audience. --Ed Poor ^Talk 06:53, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Duplicate Article

Hello Philip, I haven't been here in a while but I have a break now and can try and contribute. Anyway, there are duplicate articles for ice hockey (Ice hockey & Ice Hockey). The Ih one is better than the IH article and the IH should be deleted. However, I think that the main article should be titled Ice Hockey. I don't know how to do this change, could you help out? Thanks --Jaster 21:46, 26 November 2008 (EST)

As well as being the better article, Ice hockey is also the oldest one and with the largest history. It is also the one that conforms to our article-naming guidelines in our style manual. It should be the one retained, and Ice Hockey should be edited to be a redirect to Ice hockey. You are able to do that. Philip J. Rayment 00:55, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Member

Dear friend

TK has accepted to be part of the team for Featured articles, I am sure you will be glad to have him with us. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 21:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Creationism

Thanks for this edit. We need to know more about the Creationism. In particular, I'd like to understand what Old Earth and Young Earth creationists have in common, as well as where they part company. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:47, 1 December 2008 (EST)

What do you need to know that is not already explained? Philip J. Rayment 21:54, 1 December 2008 (EST)