User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Archive 5

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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 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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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

Article Moves

Could you move Matthew (evangelist) to Matthew the Apostle? Both currenly exist. The form Matthew the Apostle best matches what we are doing for the other Apostles. Learn together 17:57, 15 January 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure that the the title you propose is the best, but because others are that way, I've done it. They can all always be moved again later if we decide something better. You'll fix up any links to it? Philip J. Rayment 21:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Could you move Court of appeals to Court of Appeals? I can't create Court of Appeals since Court of appeals exists, but it creates red links in articles looking for Court of Appeals. Thanks. Learn together 18:11, 15 January 2008 (EST)

You can do it. You can't do it by putting it in the search box, but click on a red link, such as that one in your message above, and you can create the page. Philip J. Rayment 21:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks. I think I've done it before in similar situations, but I wasn't recognizing it right then. Learn together 12:02, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Not sure how you want to handle this, Colony Wars II: Vengance was recreated at a different title, but not moved. Either the above should be moved, or deleted at your discretion. Thanks Learn together 03:20, 20 January 2008 (EST)


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)


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)


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)


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)

Thanks for that. Yes, it is a low-priority issue, and we have enough difficultly getting comment on more important issues that I won't bother with raising it for the Manual of Style. Philip J. Rayment 17:04, 30 December 2007 (EST)


Dear Mr. Rayment,

I do think it would be very beneficial if Conservapedia had the following articles and I think you would do a very excellent job given your knowledge base and overall reasonableness:

Please consider creating these articles and enhancing them as time goes on. Conservative 18:36, 30 December 2007 (EST)

I would have thought that most of these were already covered by Theory of evolution and other articles? Philip J. Rayment 03:57, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Now it's new year in Aus

I just unblocked a user to find the time was 00:00. Happy New Year, Philip! Jallen 08:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Happy new year to you too! Philip J. Rayment 08:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)


Thank you :). However, I really must inquire, must the template be that hideous? --AngryCommunist 09:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Don't you know that they say that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? I have little colour sense, so I won't agree nor disagree, but if you look at the history of that template, it's not the colours that I made it[4] once, so clearly others thought they could do better than me (and perhaps they did and it's still not okay?). The template is locked, so you can't alter it, but you could always propose a new look on it's talk page. Whether many will notice your comments, though, is another matter. Philip J. Rayment 09:24, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Well, if I may say so, the proverbial eye would have to be in pretty poor shape, IMHO :). Ah well, I guess I can make an alternate template. --AngryCommunist 21:27, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Happy New Year

And GOOD LUCK! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:47, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks. But I don't need luck: I have God! Philip J. Rayment 09:50, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Perfect, you are really luckyfortunate. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 14:49, 31 December 2007 (EST) [my correction Philip J. Rayment 16:46, 31 December 2007 (EST)]

So the new year has started then for you? Watch out for vandals down under, mate! ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk)

Yep, nearly nine hours into 2008. Philip J. Rayment 16:56, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Your user page makes that abundantly, clear . . . ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk)

It's been a fun time...

...okay, that's a complete lie. It hasn't been fun. It's been a completely Kafka-esque experience.

Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah. I'm gone. Sacrificing precious time to edit a wiki is fine and dandy (even if it means spending an hour or so researching a language spoken by the Incas), but being insulted, attacked, threatened and blocked for trying to discuss a simple content question is where I draw the line. Oh, and then, sorta like the shoe that's thrown at the corpse to see if it really is dead, my edits were labeled as practically worthless.

I'm a conservative Christian, and I do think that a conservative encyclopedia project is a great idea, but Conservapedia is obviously just a place for Andy Schlafly to redefine reality as he sees fit. When the unsourced opinion of one sysop trumps research, sourcing, and verification by others, something is going wrong. And thanks to Andy's 24-hour block, I had time to finally browse a few other articles where Andy's opinion is effectively the Word of God. The Dawkins talk page for example. Brilliant.

But I digress. Not sure what's keeping you here, but I'm done. Thanks to Andy's Word of Godism, Conservapedia will forever be biased in favor of the pure opinion of one guy. If Andy decided that there is a correlation between kicking puppies and voting the Democrats, that would be The Truth, regardless of what anybody else said. And I'm deeply afraid that some of your fellow sysops would say "Andy is completely right! It's silly to suggest otherwise!"

Wikipedia may not exactly favor Creationism or other conservative points of interest, but at least the people there value neutral-yet-useful edits and don't instantly resort to personal attacks the moment I start an innocent content discussion (they might be unfair in the discussion itself, but even that would be way better than the trial I went through).

So, why am I posting this here on your page? You're one of the few sysops who have consistently shown reason, even when it meant speaking up against another sysop or even Andy (especially on the Archaeopteryx talk page). I might not agree with all your views, but you always try to discuss the issue and not the person, and you do so with remarkable skill. I wish you the best in whatever you do. :)

Oh, and the two wikilinked terms are my last content edits to this "encyclopedia". It should be obvious why I chose them, and I hope you get a chuckle at least. (You will most likely have to check the "View/Restore deleted edits" pages or at least the article histories for my versions, though, depending on how the other sysops react to my farewell gifts :P And if they somehow get deleted past your reach, just mail me.) --JakeC 15:51, 4 January 2008 (EST)


Hey Philip - long time no see! I was just writing to request two things of you: 1) That you re-protect Help:Templates and 2) That you grant me permission to create a template that would allow users to have multiple templates on a page without taking up too much space (so one box that could have multiple messages). Thanks so much regardless (and feel free to ask for more info)--IDuan 12:00, 7 January 2008 (EST)

I'm not clear on what you want. What sort of messages are you talking about? But apart from that, please see here. And you can quote me on that. Philip J. Rayment 02:54, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Ahh excellent - yeah it's a really relatively minor template, though I assume very useful - so I'll go ahead and create it and then show it to you just to make sure.--IDuan 15:54, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Well here it is: it's rather poor visually - but that can eventually be improved - but beyond that does everything here look ok to you?--IDuan 16:27, 9 January 2008 (EST)

My first reaction was negative, because I thought that it was a holder for other templates, and Andy (quite reasonably) has expressed a desire to not have big template notices on pages, and if this held other templates, it could be quite large. Then I realised that this would actually (potentially) replace two or more notices, so was actually taking less space than would otherwise be used. That makes it a "good thing". I'd still like to see it smaller if possible, but that may not really be acheivable.
By the way, we've been unlocking quite a few articles lately, and I see no reason to relock help:templates.
Philip J. Rayment 17:55, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Oh ok - I just wanted to make sure it being unlocked wasn't a mistake or anything. And I was also disappointed I couldn't get the template smaller - I will be trying more soon though.--IDuan 21:11, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Article Protection

Any chance Genesis could be unprotected? If not, could you please fix the links to Zebulun and Asher within the article. Thanks Learn together 03:13, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Karajou locked it, so I've e-mailed him asking him about unlocking it. Philip J. Rayment 04:46, 12 January 2008 (EST)
He's agreed to unlocking it. Go for it. Philip J. Rayment 08:39, 12 January 2008 (EST)


Philip, you'd be a terrific addition to the list for Conservapedia:Contest4. Can you join us?--Aschlafly 09:46, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry, I'll decline. I can't commit the time to it. Philip J. Rayment 07:30, 13 January 2008 (EST)


Hey Philip - thanks for the clean up on my talk page - I have no idea how I did that ... it was probably because there was an edit conflict the first time, and I must have just pasted somewhere without knowing. Thanks a bunch!--IDuan 10:38, 13 January 2008 (EST)

definition of atheism

Dear PJR,

re: definition of evolution

Sorry I am just getting back to you. I have been very busy. The title of the article has to do with search engine optimization. I will explain it to you in February when I have more time. My apologies for not being able to explain it at the present time. Conservative 16:07, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Uploading (and out-of-hours editing)

Hi, Philip. I have just discovered that I can't upload files (eg images) unless I'm an Administrator. AARRGGHH!!!!! This is SILLY! What can I (or you) do about this for me, please? Peter Ellis 09:53, 14 January 2008 (EST)

You don't appear to have read all the links in the welcome box I put on your talk page. And you don't need administrator rights to upload. You need either administrator or upload rights. You now have the latter. Philip J. Rayment 08:21, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Thank for fixing this, but there must be something I'm missing. What I would call a thorough look only turned up about the use of "{{Image request}} For requesting the upload of an image for an article." Peter Ellis 13:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)
The welcome box links to the Editor's guide, which mentions (under "Restrictions") that upload and night-edit rights can be granted to editors (other than Administrators). Philip J. Rayment 17:16, 15 January 2008 (EST)

User Page

Thanks for fixing it. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 13:21, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Sub category

Hello Philip,

Pasting from the talk page of helpjazz:

" adding sub-category to existing page

I wish to contribute a new sub-category to an existing page but really don't see how to do so. (If that made no sense, I wish to add "islamic world divisions" which would logically be a branch off of the main entry of "islam".) How do i do this?


jrp32 "

Jazz: Generally what you would do is create the category by adding it to the page you want (you can do this by typing [[Category:Islamic World Divisions]] at the bottom of the article). Then go to the newly edited page and click on the new category. Edit this page and put it in the category you want (so, put [[Category:Islam]] at the bottom of this page). It seems a little backwards at first, but you get used to it. If that doesn't make sense just let me know.

That is how you do it, but since you are relatively new I would ask a sysop before making any category changes. I think Philip J. Rayment is dealing with category assignments. HelpJazz 10:00, 16 January 2008 (EST) "

Jrp32: I wish to add a sub-category of the 3 major islamic world divisions of Dar al Islam, Dar al Sulh and Dar al Harb as a sub-category of the major category Islam. Do see any problems with my doing so?


I'm dealing with renaming categories according to our Manual of Style, not with issues of new categories like this.
I'm not a believer in such things always being run by an administrator. If it's likely to be uncontentious, just go ahead and do it. If it could be contentious (which this one may be), then I suggest that you post your idea on the talk page of the Islam category, and see what responses you get. It would also be a good idea to invite people who you think might be interested in commenting to do so. People such as those who have edited articles on the topic. If nobody objects, or there is a strong consensus, go ahead and do it. If not, it might be best not to do it, although the discussion could lead to alternative solutions.
Philip J. Rayment 10:43, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Hopefully Philip doesn't mind me replying on his talk page. I agree. I think that most potential problems can be resolved simply by discussing on the appropriate talk page. I think that one problem with wikipedia is the amount of bureaucracy, we need to avoid much of that. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 11:17, 16 January 2008 (EST)
I'll note this for the future too. I was honestly never sure of the policy, so I figured the safest bet would be to ask an admin. HelpJazz 21:28, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Please Edit

Hi Philip, I've added some info and done some copyediting for the article Christianity. Unfortunately mere mortals like myself don't have edit rights for that locked page. I figured you may have edit rights or know someone who does. My proposed changes can be found in Talk Christianity. Could you be so kind as to add them to the page for me? WKirkwood 18:56, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I see that Fox has beaten me to it. Philip J. Rayment 18:17, 17 January 2008 (EST)
I fear that the information you were asked to enter is inappropriate. Please see the talk section of Christianity. Thank you. Learn together 19:30, 17 January 2008 (EST)

MSM Redirect

The MSM page is locked to editing. Wanted to correct the redirect here: But can't get into it. Thanks! --Jdellaro 13:59, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Fixed it and unlocked it. Philip J. Rayment 18:10, 18 January 2008 (EST)

You have

email. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 13:05, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, saw it, thanks. Philip J. Rayment 01:27, 20 January 2008 (EST)


Could you unprotect Trinity? The protecting sysop is no longer active. Learn together 21:50, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Done. Philip J. Rayment 01:27, 20 January 2008 (EST)
Now I forgot what I wanted to change ;-0 Learn together 03:18, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Could you unprotect Noah's Ark? The protecting sysop is no longer active. Learn together 06:05, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Could you see about Date of the Exodus being unprotected? The protecting sysop does not have a public email. Learn together 06:10, 20 January 2008 (EST)

The protector of Noah's Ark is still active. Click on his link, and you'll see what I'm talking about. You can ask both sysops on their respective talk pages. But don't forget what you want to change in them! Philip J. Rayment 07:08, 20 January 2008 (EST)


Agh! Just from the edit summary I can guess which one needed moving. Sorry, it was just after the last sprint in the contest, and I was a bit frazzled. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 16:08, 20 January 2008 (EST)

That's okay. Philip J. Rayment 16:09, 20 January 2008 (EST)


Hey Philip - two notes: one, since this category only came back into existence recently, I just wanted to make you aware that there's a move request category again (Category:Move requests) and two) if you can, you might want to shut down night editing, somehow I guess Andy forgot, or perhaps he fell asleep - I wouldn't be surprised given the amount of effort he put into the contest lol--IDuan 00:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I think I saw you ask Andy about this template (and he give his approval), but I wonder if it's really the best way to handle these things.
There are currently three articles with the template (and therefore category). The first (Annual (plant)) is more of a suggestion that someone has made, and which others may disagree with (although personally I think it's a sensible suggestion). So I'd say that it's premature to request the move.
The third (yes, I know I'm out of order) is a no-brainer, but could fall under the auspices of conforming to the manual of style, and would probably be best put on my sub-page for name changes account the manual of style.
The second (Bias - Original work) is also an obvious one that shouldn't need debate. For obvious ones like this, I still think that asking a sysop to move it is better than adding a template and waiting for a sysop to notice. Even though it's not a manual of style thing account the case of the title, it could still go on my sub-page for moving articles.
Philip J. Rayment 01:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Hey Philip - what do you think I should do about the fact that editing is still on, should I just stay up and keep an eye out for vandals? I mean, I don't want to edit anymore because I shouldn't be editing right now as I don't have the right, it'd be like if someone left an article unprotected accidentally, but I mean, is there any way you or I could alert andy somehow?--IDuan 01:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)
If you want to keep on editing, you're welcome to. You have the right to edit as long as editing is not turned off. Philip J. Rayment 01:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Ok, then I will, I just don't want it to seem like I'm taking advantage. As the the move template - the point of the category isn't debate - it's just a place where sysops can go and see what articles might have to be moved, and that way we can better prevent users from thinking that they should move by copying and pasting (and not actually "moving" - and we can get articles in the right place--IDuan 01:14, 23 January 2008 (EST)


Click on the link to vote in my poll. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote for President 23:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Pass. As a disinterested Aussie, I don't know enough about the candidates to really say. Philip J. Rayment 00:42, 24 January 2008 (EST)
That is fine, it is just for fun anyway. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote for President 10:11, 24 January 2008 (EST)


Ahh - alright then, so from what I understand a decision is coming? I mean, regardless of the talk I'm not really sure why we have two templates for the same thing ... and even more questionable is why we have two templates that do the same thing, yet have different parameter names, but nonetheless I'll leave that to you fox and brianco to decide then - however, if I may add my opinion to the conversation on Fox's page - I think that flaws in the Prime Minister template are no reason to use two templates. We should either use Prime Minister and eventually take out the flaws, or we should not use prime minister at all until it is ready to be placed in articles; because the mix is just inconsistency.--IDuan 15:36, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Didn't you read the bit at the top of this page about where to reply? :-)
No, a decision is not coming, unfortunately. Those discussions are six months old. I was wanting you to take note of the comments about coding and the {{Succession}} template. Plus my template was done first!
Philip J. Rayment 06:47, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Lol, sorry, I sometimes reply on the other page if it's relatively time sensitive - I didn't want you to think I was still going or anything. Well, I'm relatively confused about the entire thing now ... I mean, are we seriously just going to keep two templates around forever? ahh, wait, I think I kind of get it - alright, well I'm currently working on a few other things I want to finish as soon as possible- but when I'm done with that, assuming you're ok with this, I'll go into the succession template and figuring out what to do with the PM and Prime Minister templates.--IDuan 12:38, 26 January 2008 (EST)
I think this is a case where you ought to discuss your proposed changes with other interested parties before changing things, but do what you said; when you are ready, figure out what should be done with them, make a recommendation, and invite say, Fox, BrianCo, and me to comment on your recommendation. Philip J. Rayment 16:07, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Oh yeah - that's what I mean, sorry, and hey - can you delete everythign in here? Thanks--IDuan 16:12, 26 January 2008 (EST)
I'm about to go out for the day, but I'll delete them tonight if they are still there. Philip J. Rayment 16:15, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Ah, good; they're gone, I don't have to! Philip J. Rayment 05:36, 27 January 2008 (EST)

NBA Temp

Hey Philip would you mind helping me out with a template? I'm really not sure what to do with it, I played with it for about an hour and I must be just having an off day or something because I can not make it look good. So if you get a chance, I'd really appreciate it if you could make Template:NBA look better (oh - and if you do, look at the Layout section first, it's meant to help users edit), I'd really appreciate it. Thanks--IDuan 18:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I haven't looked at it yet, but if you are just talking about colours and/or aesthetics, then I'm not the best person to ask. Philip J. Rayment 18:56, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Ahh ok then, lol, although I've always thought you've done a fine job in that area, but I'll ask someone else then.--IDuan 18:59, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Question about moving

The page Dungeons and Dragons should be moved to Dungeons & Dragons, but I know ampersands mess up the software in certain situations. I know you can create an article with one by creating a red link then clicking on it, but is it possible to move to an article with an ampersand? If you don't know, then some experimentation maybe be in order :) Thanks, HelpJazz 20:50, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Actually, that link (with the &) doesn't work. I wonder how I got it to work somewhere else... more testing is required. HelpJazz 20:51, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Ok, the software messes up if you type Dungeons & Dragons, but not if you type Dungeons & dragons. (Testing Dungeons_&_Dragons. Nope, that doesn't work either). Maybe it's best if we don't move it... HelpJazz 20:54, 3 February 2008 (EST)
There is a way to move articles with ampersands to articles without, but that's not what you are asking, is it? Philip J. Rayment 21:13, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Right, we actually need to move it the other way, but I think if we do, it will just end up causing a lot of headaches, because the links don't seem to be working right. HelpJazz 21:16, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Yes, it will cause problems, which is why last July I did this. Philip J. Rayment 21:20, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Ah ha! It's hard to look up the history of this stuff if the browser won't find the stupid the thing. I think we did something similar with Penn & Teller. HelpJazz 21:27, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Nothing much to add here; Just to say that the edit summary for the redirect is incorrect; It's a wiki software issue, not a browser issue. Barikada 21:29, 3 February 2008 (EST)
HelpJazz: There were a whole lot of articles that I moved around that time, and yes, Penn & Teller was one of them (one of the first, I think). Barikada: The browser can't handle it, but I'm guessing that what you're saying is that the browser is correctly not handling it and the Wiki software should compensate for that. Correct? Philip J. Rayment 21:44, 3 February 2008 (EST)
It's a wiki software issue-- If it was a browser issue, firefox users wouldn't be affected and the Wikipedia D&D article would have the same issue. There's something in the settings that allows you to fix this, but at the moment I can't remember what it is. Barikada 23:49, 3 February 2008 (EST)


Hey Philip - I'm perfectly willing to not edit for a day, but can I know why I was blocked? (I'll block myself after this - I just wanted to ask)--IDuan 16:45, 8 February 2008 (EST)

'twas done in error and I've unblocked. I've apologised and explained in more detail by e-mail. Philip J. Rayment 17:27, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Guard Dog

Philip, your coding skills need some serious work… :). If you don't mind my asking, what language is the Guard Dog written in? --MakeTomorrow 13:00, 9 February 2008 (EST)

A language that you would not be familiar with! Seriously, I can't know that, although there's a good chance that it's true. In any case, the code is staying secret, so you won't be able to help, sorry.

Watch list bug

Are you still having a problem with the watch-list? If so, can you confirm the problem that you're having to be as follows.

  1. The protection itself doesn't show up on the watch-list.
  2. Any subsequent edit after protection isn't appearing on watch-list.

Thanks, CPWebmaster 09:28, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Yes, the problem still exists, the protection itself doesn't show up on the watch list, and subsequent edits did not show up on the watch list. Another interesting point is that (in the case of the last one I noticed), edits to the talk page showed up, but not to the article. It was the article that was protected, not the talk page. Philip J. Rayment 21:21, 12 February 2008 (EST)


Hey Philip - just to let you know I just added the templates that need to be moved to your page, and also here's a list of templates that (a while ago) I moved manually that can just be deleted (I moved them manually because I was the only one to make edits to them - and I was going to do that for all of them until the sysop intervened and said they should stay where they are):

Thanks (and I'll fix all the links after you move and delete)!--IDuan 18:16, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Ok I fixed all the links (even to the ones above) - thanks for the help Philip!--IDuan 07:56, 13 February 2008 (EST)

age of the earth edit

Please clarify your comment that "it's not the same number to all people." Who considers 1,000 million to be a different number than 1 billion? Is there some different number convention outside of the U.S. that I'm not aware of? I'm not angry about your revert, just mystified. --Hermann1359 19:57, 15 February 2008 (EST)

That's not easy to answer. Britain (and Commonwealth countries) have used "billion" to refer to a million million. Here in Australia we seem to have been using the American definition in more recent times, and I read somewhere that Britain is, or is tending to, also. It's hard to say just how many would still use 'billion' to refer to a million million, but some might still do so, so it's probably better to stick with the clearer wording, in my opinion, especially given that it was already there. Philip J. Rayment 22:37, 15 February 2008 (EST)
Alright, that's good enough for me. Thanks for clearing that up. --Hermann1359 22:42, 15 February 2008 (EST)
Just for your info, Philip, it is now the standard accepted practice here in the UK for a billion to mean a thousand million. Officially, the "long-scale" was abandoned by the government sometime in the 70s and all mass media now use the "short-scale". Until quite recently, in the last decade I think, broadcasters like the BBC would clarify what they meant by saying "a thousand million" but now that is rarely heard. To all intents and purposes, a billion is now understood to mean the same number in all English-speaking countries. Confusion arises though as most other non-English-speaking countries use the long-scale. A billion in French and German, for example, is a million million. Ajkgordon 06:56, 4 March 2008 (EST)


A user has been deleting material from articles explaining God's contribution, just leaving the atheistic evolutionionary, anti-Christian origins myth.

WaltDouglas 15:30, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Yeah, right. The "user" was an administrator removing the "contributions" of a troll, and in all cases, with one minor exception, it is incorrect to say that the atheistic origins myth is the only thing remaining (The first two don't have the evolutionary view, and the last still has mention of the creationary view). Methinks you might be a troll yourself. Philip J. Rayment 16:53, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Medical entries

Hi Philip, I just came across this; I would assume therefore that all of those articles are of dubious provenance, hence the lack of formatting etc. I will take a random sample of a few more - if you haven't already - and if they show as copy/paste I will remove the good doctor's contributions. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 07:54, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Ah, I'd forgotten about that. I don't think I checked out any more. Be my guest. Philip J. Rayment 08:14, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Popular punctuation

For some reason the exclamatory punctuation seems to be rather popular today. I just happened to notice earlier today that Dan created the page exclamation point. HelpJazz 21:30, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Yeah (grumble), I just noticed that too. Philip J. Rayment 21:32, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Ha ha ha what are the chances? HelpJazz 21:36, 24 February 2008 (EST)

you look important

what tasks need doing around here? Chevrefuqae 21:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Writing articles, improving articles, housekeeping stuff like fixing links, sorting out categories, and so on. All sorts of stuff. In what areas do your skills lie? Philip J. Rayment 21:38, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Mosaic authorship

I actually created most of that article, I only transferred the material I had added to that article if you look at it, it makes a good case for Mosaic authorship--Java7837 13:09, 27 February 2008 (EST)

That ip was me--Java7837 23:03, 27 February 2008 (EST)


Could you please move Mosin nagant to Mosin-Nagant? Thanks so much :) HelpJazz 16:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Done. Philip J. Rayment 20:34, 27 February 2008 (EST)
Thanks HelpJazz 11:26, 28 February 2008 (EST)

a day late but I got the information to your question

Dear Mr. Rayment,

I promised to get you some information by February and unfortunately it is March 1, 2008. Specifically, you wanted to know why I changed the text in the theory of evolution article from "definitions of evolution" to "definition of evolution". I am about to email my response to you in about 5 minutes or less. Conservative 13:30, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Transitional forms

I see that you have reverted a number of my edits. Some of those reversions are arguable. The last reversion, however, is unacceptable. Those quotations are misleading and should not be left in the article without an appropriate introduction (such as the one that I inserted). I suspect that you are well aware that those quotes do not represent the current views of the scientific community. --Merriweather 00:45, 3 March 2008 (EST)

P.S. Oops. I missed your very last edit. That also is problematic. There is no established lack. All you have are a few selective quotes. Why would you put that before a description of the very thing that the article is supposed to be about? I have changed it back but would be happy to discuss. --Merriweather 00:55, 3 March 2008 (EST)

No, I am not aware that those quotes do not represent the current views of knowledgeable paleontologists. Gould and Patterson are both dead, of course, but how do you know that others like them (i.e. not, for example, geologists) don't still hold those views? And how are the quotations misleading? Your "introduction" was arrogant nonsense.
There most certainly is an established lack, and those quotes are just a few that demonstrate that lack. It should be first because the article is about something that doesn't exist! I had further changes to make, so you were looking at it in an intermediate state. Any further discussion about this should be on the article's talk page.
Philip J. Rayment 01:09, 3 March 2008 (EST)


This user is an imposter of the real Ben Schumin here and on Wikipedia. Nwwaew 17:45, 3 March 2008 (EST)

That wouldn't surprise me. But how do you know? What further information do you have? Philip J. Rayment 19:29, 3 March 2008 (EST)
Because he also brought it to my attention, where I posted about it in my own Web site, which should clear up any ambiguity: The Schumin Web: Since when have I been an active contributor on Conservapedia? SchuminWeb 22:32, 3 March 2008 (EST)
Thanks for that. I'll make the ban permanent. Philip J. Rayment 22:36, 3 March 2008 (EST)
No problem. SchuminWeb 22:43, 3 March 2008 (EST)
Glad to be of service. Perhaps you'll say something nice about us now?  :-) Philip J. Rayment 22:47, 3 March 2008 (EST)


I have to pull out of the school prayer debate currently, to sleep :-). I apologize if I misconstrued your arguments on that talk page. I'll try to clarify what I meant there later tomorrow. Thanks for your help on "quote mining"; I left a talk page note about why I'm interested in the subject, too. Have a great night!-PhoenixWright 00:36, 4 March 2008 (EST)

New Zealand Edit

Thanks for the tip Phillip. There are some issues here (I wonder where the editor is from?).

Maori party are not in opposition to Labour. I wouldnt say they are partners but certainly not against. The whole governer general part and the labour government refusing to form a non-labour government is rubbish and I have never heard of that before in the news or anywhere (I have friends who are journalists and work in parliament and they will be as surprised as I am)and the Governer General ususally does not work with political parties. Although Labour has passed a few controversial laws they are certainly not going to refuse a government to form. Also the term "weaker form of Democracy" is something I have never heard anywhere. NZ's Democracy is basically the same as AUS. Basically the changes hsould be sourced (credibly) or scrapped. Thanks for bringing this to my attention Phillip, I am proud of my silly little country! Perhaps we should add a section describing AUS/NZ rivalary? Hehehehe! MetcalfeM 22:05, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Is it salvageable or should we just revert?
A section describing rivalry would not be a good idea: Oz would end up looking too good! Why do you think that there are so many Kiwis here? :-)
Philip J. Rayment 00:58, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I think revert it as none of it can be sourced and its BS anyway.

As for Oz looking too good? hehehe May I remind you of the 'Underarm bowling incident'? Hmmm? The fact there are so many Kiwis over there is merely a case of trying to breed you all out! MetcalfeM 15:01, 5 March 2008 (EST)

About the Earth

Okey, so you belive that the earth is aproximitly 6000 years old, I just wonder what you think about all the evidence that scientists has made in the recent years that shows that dinosaurs existed on earth for as much as 230 million years ago (thats 230 000 000 years ago!). That's a common and establised fact that most people exepts as valid. How can you then state that you belive that the earth is only 6000 years old? I don't think there is any scientific data that support that theory, rather I think the reason to why you state this, (on your frontpage) is that you take the Bible purely litterly, not seeing through to the deeper mening of its writings. --Nabroon 09:53, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Okay, so you believe that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old; I just wonder what you think about all the evidence that scientists have made in recent years that shows that dinosaurs existed on Earth in quite recent times (that's in the last several hundred years).
That's a common and established fact that very many people accept as valid.
How can you then state that you believe that the Earth is 4.5 billions old?
I don't think that there is any valid scientific data that supports that theory, rather I think the reason why you believe this is that you take Darwin and other evolutionists purely literally, not seeing through to the assumptions behind their writings.
Philip J. Rayment 20:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Dinosaurs in the last several hundred years, huh? Pretty fascinating. Might you point us to some of the evidence? And even if they did exist that recently, how would that contradict the fact that dinosaurs existed on Earth 230 million years ago?ZTak 20:28, 5 March 2008 (EST)
What "fact" that they existed on Earth 230 million years ago? That's not a "fact", but an atheistic belief. And did I say that there was a contradiction? Philip J. Rayment 20:35, 5 March 2008 (EST)
A contradiction was implyed in the first statement of your first comment: "Okay, so you believe that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old; I just wonder what you think about all the evidence that scientists have made in recent years that shows that dinosaurs existed on Earth in quite recent times (that's in the last several hundred years)." You would not have brought that up if you didn't think that recent dinosaurs disproved an old Earth. And still, I see no sources of the claim that dinosaurs existed in the past hundred of years. Finally, as a believer in God, I would not call my belief in the fact of dinosaurs living 230 million years ago atheistic. ZTak 20:42, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Okay, the contradiction was implied. However, that was not my intention; my intention was to paraphrase the post that I was replying to.
For some evidence, see dinosaur. Unfortunately, many Christians have adopted atheistic ideas; the fact that you as a believer in God believe them doesn't mean that they are not atheistic. You don't say which "god" you believe in; if it is the God of the Bible, then I would point out to you that the Bible clearly says that the time span from the creation of the world to the creation of man was six days, and that dinosaurs were created on the same day as man. This utterly rules out dinosaurs living 230 million years ago. That they did so is part of the atheistic origins myth that rejects the biblical account.
Philip J. Rayment 20:50, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Request for help

Hi Phil, The article which we worked on together, quote mining, has been largely torn apart; at least, the additions to the first paragraph completely changed it. I tried to talk to Aschlafly about it, but I was banned for a day and called a "liberal" - as if that were a derogative term! - and I'm afraid to take up the cause again. I wonder if you could explain our work and why we reached that wording to Aschlafly and Karajou. I'd appreciate it.-PhoenixWright 17:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I'd already thought about what I should say there, but it's difficult to say anything. Andy (Aschlafly) owns the site, so he has the final say in disputes. Not that I would let that stop me if I could show that he was wrong, but the problem here is that because the term is not defined in a dictionary, it's hard to actually argue that his definition is wrong, although personally I do think it is. But if I can think of a suitable argument, I'll return to it. Philip J. Rayment 20:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Thanks very much; I appreciate it, and I understand your conundrum. It's enough for me that I know someone in the administration at least understands. Thanks very much again.-PhoenixWright 21:45, 5 March 2008 (EST)


Thanks Philip! As someone else said earlier, we live and learn :) 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 07:50, 7 March 2008 (EST)

It's obvious

Good catch. --Ed Poor Talk 07:54, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Not so obvious

I didn't realize that this source was merely a copy of Wikipedia.

Anyway, we need to address the general subject of:

  1. Liberals and other sneaky people who quote people out of context or otherwise maliciously and deceptively use their words against them; see Bushisms, Reaganisms
  2. Liberals who - hold on tight here - falsely accuse conservatives of that same kind of deception

I believe there is some kind of double standard in operation here. :-( --Ed Poor Talk 09:51, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree that it wasn't obvious. They do say that Wikipedia is one of their sources, but that didn't mean that the particular quote you used was from Wikipedia. I had to search a fair bit of the Wikipedia article's history to determine that it really was a verbatim quote from Wikipedia, and not just "based on" Wikipedia and perhaps checked and modified by the site. Philip J. Rayment 10:02, 9 March 2008 (EDT)


Just so you know, our discussion was moved to this page :)--TomMoore 23:05, 9 March 2008 (EDT)