Difference between revisions of "User talk:Philip J. Rayment"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Parole?: I'm not the one to ask.)
(Parole?: Huh?)
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 155: Line 155:
  
 
::::As you like, Philip. ''However, I never accepted any parole'', as I have never violated any CP rules.  ''Surely even in Australia'' one is allowed the right to confront accusers and cross-examine any wittiness who presented solid evidence of wrong-doing, right? So, since you decided, quite on your own evidently, to open this ''Pandora's Box'' could you kindly  post whatever "charges" and "violations" <u>of the CP Commandments</u> I might have made?  This is outrageous, more befitting a Banana Republic than a great American Encyclopedia that extols the virtues of American values. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 08:45, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
 
::::As you like, Philip. ''However, I never accepted any parole'', as I have never violated any CP rules.  ''Surely even in Australia'' one is allowed the right to confront accusers and cross-examine any wittiness who presented solid evidence of wrong-doing, right? So, since you decided, quite on your own evidently, to open this ''Pandora's Box'' could you kindly  post whatever "charges" and "violations" <u>of the CP Commandments</u> I might have made?  This is outrageous, more befitting a Banana Republic than a great American Encyclopedia that extols the virtues of American values. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 08:45, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
 +
 
::::: As I've just advised by e-mail, and you can see anyway from the edit history on your user page, Geo.plrd implemented the parole, so you should ask him about it.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:52, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
 
::::: As I've just advised by e-mail, and you can see anyway from the edit history on your user page, Geo.plrd implemented the parole, so you should ask him about it.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:52, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
How about I stipulate you "showed me", Philip?  All better now? Is your anti-American blood lust requited now? Jeeze...... --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 09:12, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
 +
: I have no idea what the first sentence of that means.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:25, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 09:25, 1 April 2008

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.

S(k/c)eptics

I apologize, Philip. I wasn't aware that the Australian spelling was different, nor was I attempting to derail the debate. Barikada 23:37, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Apology accepted. I initially didn't know if that was the point you were getting at, and even when you mentioned the k, I still wasn't certain if you were trying to argue from the Greek. The Online Etymology Dictionary says this about the word:
from Fr. sceptique, from L. scepticus, from Gk. skeptikos ... The sk- spelling is an early 17c. Gk. revival and is preferred in U.S.
Philip J. Rayment 01:52, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Conflict of interest in your block of Barikada

Hello Philip, generally it's good practice in a community of networked users that, when a conflict arises between an administrator and a user, the administrator ought not to take punitive action against him or her. To do the same would be to engage oneself in a conflict of interest, a violation of typical rules of institutional and ethical integrity. It also gives the appearance of pettiness. A public discourse with another administrator, followed by an agreement on a blocking period, is preferable, and I would hope that a block would not lie for a mere conflict regarding the facts of a debate between you two, even if a little snark was thrown in.-PhoenixWright 22:09, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I appreciate what you are saying, and ideally that would be the practice, but (a) it has never been the practice here to involve another administrator (which is not to say that there aren't the odd exceptions), and (b) even if I did, people would probably think, if not actually say, that we were just sticking up for each other anyway. Furthermore, I very rarely block people who are disagreeing with me, and never simply for disagreeing. Barikada had posted a response in defiance of my instruction not to unless he had read the links, and I could have blocked him then for disobeying an administrator's instruction, but decided to simply revert his edit instead. But when he reinstated the edit, and although then claiming to have read the links, still showed no sign that he had read them, or at least understood them, and replied in the manner he did, he had pushed my patience too far.
By the way, I don't see the point of linking in talk-page discussions to articles that don't exist.
Philip J. Rayment 22:26, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
I plan to write the article :-). Also, isn't it possible that he read the material but still thought his point was valid? What I'm thinking is that you both might have been talking past each other. I see he's a discrete & insular minority here... like me... so I think giving the benefit of the doubt ought to be a good rule.-PhoenixWright 22:36, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
By the way, I appreciate that you're even considering my request - generally, my experience with admins is that I'd just be blocked, no questions asked, for asking :-) ...-PhoenixWright 22:37, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
If he read and understood the material and still thought his point was valid, he could have tried to refute the material. But he didn't; he instead made a silly comment that was nothing to do with the material. And I had already given him plenty of leeway. Philip J. Rayment 01:56, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps too much leeway. Look at his block log, especially his third. Bohdan 03:51, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
Well, looking at the block log, you guys can rejoice since he won't bother you for another... three months. --DHayes 11:50, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Hey cobber

Re: your user page, and what we talked about - Don't let the sniping from outside get you down. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 06:51, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the cooperation and fairness, but...

...I'll be gone, most likely for a good while.

It's a pity that I got blocked while trying to comment on your recent essay. I wanted to point out a few flaws and (in my eyes) leaps of logic. We could have had a healthy exchange of ideas. But in hindsight, it's maybe better this way. While I don't think that you would have blocked me, others show less restraint (See also Andy threatening a ban on a debate page and the block of DLerner, for example. And even saying this much will earn me a 1-day block according to Crocoite's "MYOB" rule. Crocoite, if you're reading this, please wait an hour or so, then I won't have to wait a full day to make a few parting comments). My first block was for pointing out that CP is unfairly biased in certain issues (see my posts on the Main Talk Page), for example. And we both know how fair the second block was. *eyeroll*

If you review my contributions, you will see that I tried to improve this "encyclopedia" without some sort of Liberal Agenda. I corrected content to improve accuracy, de-linked dates, moved deleted templates/categories off the Most Wanted list, pointed out wrong cites... all of this also while cooperating with other sysops (you helped with the templates, Crocoite helped with the deleted templates, Conservative helped to fix a cite...).

However, I also got in the way of somebody who insists on using minor blogs as reliable sources and who refused to give cites for his more far-out claims. And during my second time-out, I realized that he was not alone.

That's when it dawned on me: The Commandments and guidelines don't apply when bashing anything non-conservative. Some people prefer to develop a blind spot for those articles (an attitude now apparently enforced by Crocoite's "Don't whine about the liberal articles!" quasi-rule), others think that these articles are perfectly accurate and simply don't need sources (or that sob stories by conservatives with a persecution complex are reliable sources). Whatever the reasoning, it goes against my view (and the view of the Commandments) of what a Trustworthy Encyclopedia should contain.

Then something else dawned on me: I wasted my time here. I spent hours and days going through articles, correcting things, fixing links, making a list to keep track of open issues I had noticed... but it was a waste of time because the most hideously unfair and biased articles are off-limits, and because I would get questioned, threatened or blocked even for asking about a claim/source (see also the "Double standard" section on the talk page of Ed "I wrote Assume good faith!" Poor).

So I'll take a long break from this wiki and use my time and skills on a site where people don't instantly interrogate me for asking simple questions or trying to bring articles in line with the rules. Occasionally, I'll check back to see if I maybe just got here at a bad time. If I get the impression that liberals are not just suppliers of cheap labor who can be openly bullied and ridiculed, I'll give editing another try.

If you got some time, here are the remaining open issues from my user page. I'm going to wipe it. Where applicable, I left full comments on the talk pages.

Assuming that I'm not going to be banned for some reason, I hope that you and the other cooperative sysops will still be here when/if I return.

Keep up the good work! --DHayes 17:54, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Advice on catching vandals

Greetings,

I am sure that you are aware of The Information Warriors Handbook on that site. In it I discovered that they give advice on how to sock, create parodies, troll, vаndаlise and generally attempt to undermine this project. I believe that the Sysops should make a page sometime giving advice on how to detect vаndals, trolls and socks from that site. What do you think?. Should I suggest it to other Sysops?

P.S-What is the point of such a strict spam filter.Blocking the words "vаndаlise" , "Icеwеdgе" or "rationаlwiki" (no offense intended in naming those words) will only cause difficulties for people attempting to discuss those topics,as I am, instead of making things any more difficult for vаndals. All the vаndals have to do is write the the words in 1337, e.g 1cewedg3, v4ndal and r4tionalw1ki.

Zugzwang 11:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't see much value in your first suggestion. As for your second point, you managed to post them, didn't you?. Philip J. Rayment 10:36, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Thanks

Thank you Philip for your help. Even in Spanish, sometimes, I make this kind of mistakes. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:19, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

That's "these kinds of mistakes" or "this kind of mistake" :-) You're welcome. Philip J. Rayment 09:22, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Featured articles

You have a reply.

Happy Easter! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 11:43, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Time to update! It's your turn, partner. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:52, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I just sent you an important email

Dear PJR,

Happy Easter! I just sent you an important email.Conservative 18:45, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

As I've said before, I do check my e-mails, and there's no need to tell me here that I've been sent one. Philip J. Rayment 23:27, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Invite

Thanks for the invite and links to the outline of how Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia.

I responded to your comments on my talk page, please at least give me time to copy the work in progress to my talk pages as a sandbox.

To whom can we put in requests for other templates etc? --Bkwsuwatch 09:31, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure what you mean regarding templates. If you want to create a template that we don't already have, go ahead and create it. Check the list of templates (also in that useful links box) before you do so though, in case we already have a suitable template. Philip J. Rayment 09:36, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Template

Is there any examples of templates made with documentation I can look at to figure out how to make template documentation? -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

See {{Nb zl camelids}} for an example, but the Creating templates link in the message on your user page should be your main guide. Philip J. Rayment 18:48, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm annoying, I know

I come to you yet again with an ampersand question. Could you move Simon & Garfunkel to Simon and Garfunkel and Mamas & the Papas to Mamas and the Papas? Thanks. (PS: In the future should I put non-MOS moves in the article renaming project page or on your talk page?) HelpJazz 11:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Uh. Nevermind. It seems someone already moved them. In which case, can you delete the "&" versions of the page, so we don't have to deal with them again? Thanks again... HelpJazz 11:10, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
In one sense it doesn't matter where they go. Putting them on the renaming project page has the advantage that someone (i.e. you or BrianCo!) will check to see if links to the page are adjusted, but in cases like I think these were, where they were new articles anyway, it probably doesn't make any difference. I did delete them, by the way. Philip J. Rayment 04:18, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Ok, good to know. And thanks. HelpJazz 10:15, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
I love how this edit and this edit were made at the exact same time. HelpJazz 10:24, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Yeah! :-) Philip J. Rayment 10:27, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Hiroshima

Thanks Phillip. Now is nicer. This weapon is excellent: {{clear}}

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 22:16, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

sterilise

Please take a look here: sterilize --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:39, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Please take a look here. Note the line under "Main entry". Philip J. Rayment 08:49, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
OK, Phillip, let us leave it the British way. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:55, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Actually, it was the Aussie way! Because I wrote it!  :-) Philip J. Rayment 08:58, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

The new article

Thanks for sorting this out. And yes, it probably is a waste of time and won't be adopted, but I do want to show that these things can be improved.--Phillipps 22:36, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Request

Dear Philip, I am currently trying to get night edit rights so that I can better contribute to Conservapedia. As a sysop who has had experience working with me, I would like to ask for your support. If you feel that I deserve edit rights, please say so here. If you do not think I deserve them, I fully understand and I thank you anyway. Sincerely, HelpJazz 01:19, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Sídney

Thanks, in Spanish is Sídney. Good work; we have to use the English word.

We have also new a manager in Featured articles with a new vision and a great start. Congratulation! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 11:50, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Parole?

You have unilaterally re-instated some parole for me that Geo discharged? --₮K/Talk 07:51, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

My understanding is just that the parole would no longer be publicly displayed, not that the parole conditions had been withdrawn. I didn't reinstate the message; I just updated it to reflect what I believe to be the case, rather than it still saying that you were under parole but with a broken link to the details of it. Philip J. Rayment 07:58, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Well, your consideration, Philip, in making sure my parole is no longer publicly displayed, as you said your understanding was, is certainly appreciated. But I wonder, what the link is for, if it is not to be publicly displayed? It's a small matter, and I feel honored you can take time from your many duties and interests to make sure things are "right" with my user page. Cheers! --₮K/Talk 08:06, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
I've checked my e-mails, and the loose consensus seemed to be that the parole page should not be on public display, but you've made a valid point (I think: I assume your reference to a "link" was to the notice on your user page) that it's a bit pointless in removing the page and not removing the notice. I'll remove the notice as well, but that doesn't constitute a withdrawal of the parole itself. Philip J. Rayment 08:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
As you like, Philip. However, I never accepted any parole, as I have never violated any CP rules. Surely even in Australia one is allowed the right to confront accusers and cross-examine any wittiness who presented solid evidence of wrong-doing, right? So, since you decided, quite on your own evidently, to open this Pandora's Box could you kindly post whatever "charges" and "violations" of the CP Commandments I might have made? This is outrageous, more befitting a Banana Republic than a great American Encyclopedia that extols the virtues of American values. --₮K/Talk 08:45, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
As I've just advised by e-mail, and you can see anyway from the edit history on your user page, Geo.plrd implemented the parole, so you should ask him about it. Philip J. Rayment 08:52, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

How about I stipulate you "showed me", Philip? All better now? Is your anti-American blood lust requited now? Jeeze...... --₮K/Talk 09:12, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

I have no idea what the first sentence of that means. Philip J. Rayment 09:25, 1 April 2008 (EDT)