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

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Category Removals: Done)
(Singular possessive)
Line 256: Line 256:
  
 
Thank you for fixing the ''Gun Control and Genocide'' reference [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gun_control&curid=8440&diff=358530&oldid=358382] and for the comment "Ibid's don't work well on a Wiki where other references might be inserted or sections rearranged or deleted." I learned something I can use in future articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 23:27, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 
Thank you for fixing the ''Gun Control and Genocide'' reference [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gun_control&curid=8440&diff=358530&oldid=358382] and for the comment "Ibid's don't work well on a Wiki where other references might be inserted or sections rearranged or deleted." I learned something I can use in future articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 23:27, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
== Singular possessive ==
 +
 +
Just remembered seeing your Dawkins edit summary while the site had been in night-edit mode:
 +
{{cquote|I think most style guides would say to omit the s after the apostrophe}}
 +
As a matter of fact, major style guides seem to tend towards "Dawkins's", even though the resulting construct does look odd. But it's not set in stone, so you can find sources to argue either way.
 +
 +
[http://doesthisblogmakemybuttlookbig.com/2004/03/14/more-singular-proper-possessive/ Here] is a blog where a guy compares various style guides. The end result shows how even the major-league guys (AP vs. Elements of Style vs. MLA vs. Chicago MoS) haven't reached proper consensus.
 +
 +
Personally, I try to work around such cases. If in doubt, I find myself omitting the "s" after the apostrophe, although I usually try to stick to "Elements of Style" (which is a GREAT book, in my opinion). Yes, I'm conflicted, I know... :P
 +
 +
I'd suggest to try and form some sort of consensus/decision over at our MoS talk page and see what happens. I'd argue against enforcing a single style, but at the same time, I'm against random mixing of styles within one article (extreme example: "While Dawkins' views on evolution are well known, little can be said about Dawkins's views on kittens.").
 +
 +
Disclaimer: I freely admit that this is a fairly low-priority issue, even among MoS questions. Just thought I'd post since I saw it mentioned :) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 11:47, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Revision as of 12:47, 30 December 2007

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.

Template copyright

Hi Phillip

According to instructions setting the Source should be "light". But the complete Template for me is OK. Just an explanation. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 21:28, 25 November 2007 (EST)

I initially had no idea what you were talking about, then realised that it must be in reference to this edit. Beyond that, though, I still have no idea what you are talking about! Please explain your explanation. Philip J. Rayment 00:46, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Hello Phillip

I am an independent journalist writing a book about groups that use rhetoric to effectively shape their world. As an example, I would very much like to talk to some of the regular users of this site, of which you seem to be one. I anticipate needing only about 30 minutes of your time. I can be reached at itmathers@gmail.com Thanks and have a great night! Ian ItMathers 21:38, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks for speaking with me, I appreciate it! Your insights are very helpful. ItMathers 16:21, 29 November 2007 (EST)
Huh? I have been busy and have been trying to decide whether I want to do this. I'll let you know once I've decided. Philip J. Rayment 20:04, 29 November 2007 (EST)
I'm sorry, I meant to put this on a different page. Thank you! ItMathers 20:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Germany

Would you be able to say another smart thing on the Germany talk page. In practice, LearTogether and I worked out a version that satisfies both of us, and which is actually not too different from either of our earlier version. But we keep going on about who started the revert war, and whether he deserves as much respect as Andy. Given that we are done with the article, this whole discussion is somewhat pointless. But as you know, I suffer from lastwordism. :) Order 08:15, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Done. Now perhaps I ought to do the same on the Moon page? Nah, you'd accuse me of a conflict of interest, I suppose. Philip J. Rayment 08:35, 29 November 2007 (EST)
Oh, we a turning in circles, but in friendly circles. Order 08:46, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Templates

Hey - thanks for the quick response - I figured if I'm going to point out pages it's probably going to be easiest to do it here - thus the change in scenery for our conversation. Before that though, I'll go ahead and address the duplicate template issue. When I was redesigning the templates (with TK's approval) - it was my understanding that we would actually create completely new templates - you know how we used to have Stub and Stub2 - where they were the same template, but they just look different? Well, I thought we would do that. However, after I did that - it turned out that TK intended to just replace the templates - and rather than redirect the old to the new - he just put the same code in for each template, because he said that the redirects would be a big drain on the server.

Now, Template:Stub - that's the stub template - and you can see all the templates that I redesigned on Andy's talk page - there's a list (if you want I can copy and paste that here).

Unfortunately I'm a bit rushed for time - so I cant gather all the NFL templates right this second - however in a few hours I should be back online, and I'll gladly get a list for you then.

Again, thanks so much for all your help!--IDuan 21:02, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Oh - I'm so sorry, I forgot to link you to Template:Template - which is the template for templates I spoke to you about in the email. Now - for the NFL templates: well, I might have to put that off for a bit - as they have been spread out a bit and tonight I'm particularly busy - however by tomorrow I will have them all for you.--IDuan 21:48, 29 November 2007 (EST)
I'll look at this more when I get home in a couple of hours and re-read your e-mail, but for now I'll just try and clarify the duplicate templates thing. Is the following correct?
  • There was an existing template named (hypothetically) TEMP.
  • You created a replacement to a new design called TEMP2.
  • TK copied the content of TEMP2 to TEMP, giving two identical templates.
  • TEMP2 is therefore no longer needed and can be deleted.
Philip J. Rayment 01:07, 30 November 2007 (EST)
Well, I mean ... I would just redirect temp to temp2 - or vice versa - and keep the history temp2.--IDuan 15:22, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Oh - and as far as coordinating to do the template thing goes - I'm usually online at 11 eastern time (4 UTC/GMC) - however on the weekends I'm more flexible. The best way to contact me would probably be AIM - my screen name is lssacDuan - however I'm also flexible in that too.--IDuan 17:00, 30 November 2007 (EST)

to: PJR

I just sent you a email and I was seeking your assistance. It appears as if I was invited to a some Google group involving CP in the past that seems to be an important group and I seem to have forgotten my password and username. If you could be of assistance I would be indebted to you. Conservative 19:25, 1 December 2007 (EST)

I Saw the e-mail before I saw the message here. I've said before that there's no need to say here that you've sent an e-mail, as I check them frequently. Philip J. Rayment 01:57, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Help:Templates

Hey sorry about that last revert philip - I had set up a new tool in my browser to correct spelling mistakes in text areas (I had done the tool for my email) - and I forgot it would apply to this to - thus changing british/american spelling. Again, sorry about that. Oh by the way - I think I've finished everything that you've unprotected - there are only a few more that need to be done, and those are ones you haven't unprotected yet - so we're almost through.--IDuan 20:28, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Oh - and as to Help:Templates - i'm going to go ahead and try and update that page over the next two days - i.e. make sure all of the parameters are right and make sure all the descriptions are right - so if you could leave that open a bit longer I'd appreciate it.--IDuan 20:30, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Thank you for the welcome

Dear Philip,thank you very much for the warm welcome. I appreciate that this is a family-friendly site. There are unfortunately matters of grave importance to us that are difficult to avoid. I am personally impressed by the sterling work done here in the following articles:

I am very interested in homosexualism and appreciate the many trustworthy articles on the subject that can be found here. FloPey 12:35, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Dear Philip, you suggested I make substantive contributions. I have endevored to follow the high standard of educational, clean, and concise trustworthiness for which Conservapedia is known and loved around the world. I was inspired by this article, to which even Mr. Schlafly himself found time to make a substantial contribution. I created the link to Voter loyalty and created an educational, clean, and concise article. I hope future generations may profit from the insights this contribution provides. May God be with you FloPey 13:20, 7 December 2007 (EST)
It's a start. But more is needed before I'd consider it "substantive". For your next contribution, how about you put as much effort into it as you put into this post explaining it to me? Philip J. Rayment 18:34, 7 December 2007 (EST)

It's a shame that FloPey got blocked for his educational, clean, and concise contribution. Apparently it was mocking. Why aren't others who make educational, clean, and concise contributions blocked? What is the difference between an educational, clean, and concise contribution and mocking? CillaHunt 10:17, 8 December 2007 (EST)

It's also a shame that you appear to be headed down the same path. I recommend that you change course before you are also blocked. Oh wait, I see that you already have been. Philip J. Rayment 02:14, 9 December 2007 (EST)

???

Why did you delete my post? I will assume that it was an accident and replace it. :\ --David R 21:45, 6 December 2007 (EST)

I did not delete your post. Ed Poor deleted a post of yours, and I assume that it was deliberate, so I advise you against restoring it. Take it up with Ed Poor if you wish. Philip J. Rayment 21:55, 6 December 2007 (EST) I was on the wrong wavelength with this response. Philip J. Rayment 22:03, 6 December 2007 (EST)

O wait, I am so sorry!!! I forgot that my computer deletes those words. Please accept my apology for deleting them a second time as well. Unfortunately, I have no way of correcting that myself. Again, sorry. --David R 21:57, 6 December 2007 (EST)

If you can't stop that, this will be a problem, as it's unfair to have others have to clean up after you all the time. Philip J. Rayment 22:03, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Article titles (new MOS)

Philip, I see you've made a start on this and I've been checking the links. However, is there a view on singular and plural title names? In my work with other wikis, the singular is generally preferred as the link can just have an "s" added. I only ask because of the Abrahamic religions page is plural. BrianCo 17:05, 8 December 2007 (EST)

There's no formal policy, I believe, but we have been known to convert plural titles to singular. My initial reaction is that this one would be an exception, but on further thought I don't see why it should be, so I've fixed it. Philip J. Rayment 02:17, 9 December 2007 (EST)
P.S. The project page has its own talk page where comments like this could be put. Philip J. Rayment 02:38, 9 December 2007 (EST)
I realise that, I just thought that the plural/singular thing was a separate issue from case and wondered if there should be a policy on it. BrianCo 13:39, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Fair enough. Philip J. Rayment 14:58, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Amazing Grace

Thanks for this help, Philip. --Ed Poor Talk 13:19, 9 December 2007 (EST)

You're welcome. I didn't realise that you'd only just created the article. I happened to come across it in looking through special:AllPages looking for capitalised article names. Philip J. Rayment 15:01, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Value of Pi?

On the Main Talk Page, you challenged one fellow: "(A)nswer one of two questions: (1) what is the exact value of pi?..." Seeing as how the value of pi has been calculated to something like a trillion digits (and counting), you might not want to tempt some waggish vandal to post it.  :)

Also I gotta say: While I don't buy into the YEC world view, and Biblical inerrancy, your arguments for same are always thoughtful and interesting, and I enjoy reading them.--RossC 21:18, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Hmmm, I didn't think of the possibility that someone would try posting those trillion digits (or even a few hundred). The point, of course, is that they cannot post the exact value, because no exact value has ever been calculated; only an approximation, albeit an extremely precise one. Yet they criticise the Bible for not having the exact value!
Thanks for the compliment. Philip J. Rayment 23:24, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Vandals

User:Christamen is a vandal. EDIT: Maybe I am wrong: I first thought that he deleted Al Qaeda from terrorist groups in Terrorism, but he just deleted it from "radical groups". My apologies if I accused him unjustly. Leopeo 09:12, 11 December 2007 (EST)

He's copied two articles from Wikipedia and edited Terrorism. The latter might be vandalism, and copying from Wikipedia is against the rules, but not vandalism. I'm not jumping to conclusions yet. Philip J. Rayment 09:18, 11 December 2007 (EST) (typed before your edit)
(S)he was a vandal after all, and is gone for good. Leopeo 14:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Re:Welcome

Hi, thanks for the welcome message in my talk page. --Esardg 10:04, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry about that...

Hi Philip,

Someone told me I had a msg on my talk page, so I've come looking. I apologize for dropping away so suddenly, but I've gone back and forth on quitting CP, and after the last bout (I will save you the reasons, this isn't meant to be a political debate at this point) I added CP's url to my blacklist so I would even avoid the temptation to peek.

Good luck with your work, Philip, you've always been a gracious conversationalist and I've enjoyed talking with you. Regards, Aziraphale 14:34, 12 December 2007 (EST)

You contributions to categorization of articles have been unparalled. I hope you would reconsider your decision to leave as you will be sorely missed. Please realize that your work is appreciated. We would not be where we are today without your efforts. Learn together 13:07, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Category Removals

  • Could you please remove the Category:Musical Instruments (Category:Musical Instrument already exists) Learn together 14:15, 13 December 2007 (EST)
  • Category:Historical people (No entries, current structure doesn't support its use) Learn together 14:32, 13 December 2007 (EST)
  • Category:British politics (Moved to Category:British Politics) Learn together 14:55, 13 December 2007 (EST)
  • Category:British rugby league teams (Moved to British Rugby League Teams -- only 1 article in category at time of move) Learn together 15:09, 13 December 2007 (EST)
  • Category:Alternate rock bands (No entries; Category:Alternate Rock Bands already exists and is populated) Learn together 15:51, 17 December 2007 (EST)—no such page. Philip J. Rayment 08:18, 27 December 2007 (EST)
I've done the second one, but the others kind of pre-empt policy discussions Philip J. Rayment 00:56, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Ok. At least I'll put them out there for you when/if you're ready. Learn together 01:15, 14 December 2007 (EST)
  • Category:Catholic leaders (Moved to Category:Catholic Leaders) Learn together 00:37, 27 December 2007 (EST)
All done. Philip J. Rayment 08:18, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Thanks ;-) Learn together 03:28, 28 December 2007 (EST)
  • Category:Basketball players (Moved to Category:Basketball Players) Learn together 03:28, 28 December 2007 (EST) Done. Philip J. Rayment 03:30, 28 December 2007 (EST)
  • Category:Chess players (Moved to Category:Chess Players) Learn together 12:52, 28 December 2007 (EST)
  • Category:US Towns and Cities (Already exists and in use as United States Towns and Cities) Learn together 20:53, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Done. Philip J. Rayment 22:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Genocide

This seems a fairly straightforward issue to me. I have seen no definition of genocide outside of this site's article that requires that genocide be carried out by a government. The UN has not defined genocide this way, and the State Department states explicitly that genocide occurred in Bosnia. [1] Based on these facts, I think the definition in the article should be corrected, and the Srebrenica massacre should be reinserted as an example of genocide. What are your thoughts? SSchultz 21:44, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Article

I came across this article Post-Diluvian Diasporas and thought you might want to add your thoughts. Learn together 16:31, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Unprotect Tea

Philip, could you please unprotect Tea? I'm not sure why it was ever protected; there was no vandalism or edit warring. Thanks HelpJazz 23:45, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Done. Philip J. Rayment 23:50, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Thanks! HelpJazz 23:50, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Incarnation and Trinity

Hi, Philip. Am I even in the right ballpark on the Incarnation? --Ed Poor Talk 08:04, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Yep, right ballpark, although I'm not sure of some of the details. Although Christians do refer to Jesus being "fully God, fully man", "incarnation" would only refer to the second part of this, I would think. Philip J. Rayment 08:07, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks, I wanted to attend a seminary and learn more about all that theology stuff but I never got around to it. All I know about theology is layman's stuff, mostly from private conversations with missionaries. --Ed Poor Talk 08:27, 16 December 2007 (EST)

down for editing

why does the whole site seem to go down for editing (i.e., all pages blocked for editing) after a certain time at night? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SlapHappy (talk)

Editing locks, I don't know why but it's REALLY annoying for someone like me. --m s s b 5 7 // blah ! // this was my fault 00:46, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Tut tut, didn't either of you read the Editor's Guide linked in the welcome messages on your respective talk pages? It is explained here. Philip J. Rayment 02:04, 18 December 2007 (EST)
I now realise that mssb57 is apparently aware of why he can't edit at time, but doesn't understand the reasoning behind this. The Editor's Guide (linked above) says "Some of these peculiarities are due to Conservapedia being the focus of myriad vandals wanting to undermine or destroy the conservative point of view.", although this is not close to the bit about the night editing restrictions. So in a nutshell, it's to limit the opportunity for vandalism. Philip J. Rayment 02:42, 18 December 2007 (EST)

thanx

hey thankyou for the introduction, yours --Realist2 09:29, 19 December 2007 (EST)


Hey im British take a look at the article on the UK [[2]] and im a little concerned on the whole religion thing. The table says that over 70% of people are christian which is probably true however the article doesn`t explain that most people do not go to church, no more than 2 million people in the uk still go to chuch. We also have very liberal social policies, we support science, we support gay rights (they can have civil ceromonies, join the army ,there are discrimination laws to protect them and most people now accept them), we are pro choice. The Uk is a very liberal country in comparison to the US but this table makes us sound more conservative than the US which it is not.

Politically all of the three mainstream parties are more liberal than the US democrats as the conservative party has moved to the centre left since the introduction of the human rights Act 1998. If I can source all this would it be a problem to include it? Yours --Realist2 09:49, 19 December 2007 (EST)

There shouldn't be a problem including this. As a general rule of thumb, anything that is true can be included if it relevant and family-friendly and as long as it's not put in such as way as to endorse immorality, liberal views, etc. Philip J. Rayment 20:13, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Discuss redirects

Is there a page to discuss redirects, before implementing them, rather than simply hitting up the handiest administrator? I was thinking specifically of Mardi Gras, in this case, but I am often loathe to undo others work without seeking more of a consensus, but I didn't know if there was any sort of page to discuss structural changes before implementing them.Boomcoach 15:57, 19 December 2007 (EST)

As a general rule, changes like this should be discussed on the talk page(s) of the article(s) concerned. That's what it's there for! Philip J. Rayment 20:15, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Gun control

Thank you, Philip, for your encouraging remarks on the gun control article. I look forward to working with you here! ThomasB 20:40, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Christmas Tidings

Philip, I know it may be a little late for you down under but I wish you a very merry Christmas. I really appreciate your efforts at Conservapedia and regard you as one of its finest editors. You are slow to anger and can balance different points of view. Also you are one of the few who really understand the "wiki" aspects of the site in trying to enforce some consistency. It has been a pleasure working with you and I look forward to more productive collaboration in the new year. BrianCo 10:27, 25 December 2007 (EST)

[blush] Well, thank you. Yes, it's boxing day now (looks like I'll have to write that article!), but thanks for your wishes and I appreciate your efforts here, and merry Christmas to you to. Philip J. Rayment 18:41, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Ibid's

Thank you for fixing the Gun Control and Genocide reference [3] and for the comment "Ibid's don't work well on a Wiki where other references might be inserted or sections rearranged or deleted." I learned something I can use in future articles. --Crocoite 23:27, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Singular possessive

Just remembered seeing your Dawkins edit summary while the site had been in night-edit mode:

I think most style guides would say to omit the s after the apostrophe

As a matter of fact, major style guides seem to tend towards "Dawkins's", even though the resulting construct does look odd. But it's not set in stone, so you can find sources to argue either way.

Here is a blog where a guy compares various style guides. The end result shows how even the major-league guys (AP vs. Elements of Style vs. MLA vs. Chicago MoS) haven't reached proper consensus.

Personally, I try to work around such cases. If in doubt, I find myself omitting the "s" after the apostrophe, although I usually try to stick to "Elements of Style" (which is a GREAT book, in my opinion). Yes, I'm conflicted, I know... :P

I'd suggest to try and form some sort of consensus/decision over at our MoS talk page and see what happens. I'd argue against enforcing a single style, but at the same time, I'm against random mixing of styles within one article (extreme example: "While Dawkins' views on evolution are well known, little can be said about Dawkins's views on kittens.").

Disclaimer: I freely admit that this is a fairly low-priority issue, even among MoS questions. Just thought I'd post since I saw it mentioned :) --JakeC 11:47, 30 December 2007 (EST)