Last modified on 19 September 2008, at 09:10

User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Archive 7

Return to "Philip J. Rayment/Archive 7" page.

Response to comments made elsewhere

This is a response to comments made about me on another website. Some of the comments were complimentary, some not. Some nicely defended my point of view, and for that, I thank those persons. This is to reply to some of the incorrect assumptions and misunderstandings.

Don't mistake public solidarity for a wilful blind eye. For anyone who has a copy, see, for example, message 3796.

As Az and others pointed out, that Christianity is the only correct religion is a teaching of Christianity itself (John 14:6 ). But that includes Baptists, Presbyterians, etc., despite their individual differences. Beyond that, I don't claim to know who is going to heaven and who to hell. As for my "scary" worldview: I think the matter is overstated, but it provides lots of motivation! What's yours?

I don't think I've ever said that a government should "actively promote" one religion over another, but I have said that they should endorse Christianity. But this is on the grounds that (a) Christianity is correct, and (b) this is objectively determinable. (Note that when I say "objectively", I'm not talking about scientific "proof". Rather, the sort of reasonable conclusions that one can draw, that I explain in my Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia.) Atheists, conversely, reject both those points, and from their point of view, I can understand their objection to a government endorsing Christianity. Can they see the grounds for a government endorsing Christianity on the premise that (a) and (b) are true?

No, I don't believe that evolution is a "deliberate hoax" (despite elements of that, such as Piltdown and Haeckel).

As for "agree[ing] to disagree", that might sound reasonable if atheists/evolutionists would agree to some disagreement on evolution in schools, but they fight tooth and nail to only have their view taught. So much for living "together under the same government".

As for the foul bigotry shown by a supposedly-educated person (a doctor)... I'll pray for you. And for the person who agreed with him.

Replying to a much more reasonable post that followed, biblically, we are all "evil". But in the common understanding of especially bad or something, then no, I don't think that everyone who rejects the Bible/creation is "evil". Many are very nice, pleasant, civil, people.

And finally, believing that Christianity is the only true religion and recognising the existence of other points of view is not inconsistent.

Philip J. Rayment 07:20, 24 May 2008 (EDT)


My first point must have been a bit too cryptic for them to understand.

And one person seems to think that the fact that I've studied the creation/evolution issue for a long times means that I'm a "nutter" and "not all there" rather than merely misinformed. It seems to escape her that perhaps it means that I understand the issue somewhat better than she does.

I also note that one of my "faults" is that I'm adamant that Christianity is correct. Yet the only basis for concluding that I'm a "nutter", etc., is if the persons accusing me of that are adamant that they are correct. Perhaps they were looking in the mirror?

And the persons who think that I argue that Christianity is true simply because Christianity and/or the Bible say so, obviously doesn't know what they are talking about, because I have never used that argument, and in fact have previously denied using that argument. So to then criticise me for something I haven't done merely shows that they are unable to put a reasoned argument, yet accuse me of not using reason!

I see that one or two have responded to my question above about governments endorsing Christianity if the premises I mentioned are true, and, somewhat surprisingly, they agreed. Good. Now given that, doesn't it seem a bit pointless arguing about what governments should or should not endorse when it's not that point, but the premises, on which we disagree?

I will provide one piece of "non-self-referencing piece of evidence for [my] views" if, once having done so, (a) that person promises, within one week, to retract and apologise for all the vitriol she has spouted, and (b) does not find excuses to dismiss my evidence (such as changing these rules) as long as it does meet these rules; and if they agree that the following is what I have to do: provide one piece of evidence (not standalone proof) that is (i) by itself, more consistent with my views of God, the Bible, and/or creation and the flood than with atheistic/mainstream science/evolutionary views, and (ii) not quoting the Bible itself, nor a mere opinion from a known Christian source. (I'm open to a revision of these "rules" before I provide said evidence.) Is she up to the challenge?

Philip J. Rayment 10:41, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

P.S. Well, that didn't take long. Despite the rhetoric, she is not up to the challenge. She rejected "[my] terms", which were only intended to clarify by making the rules more rigorous (and were open to negotiation). Instead, she poses a different challenge, one virtually designed to be unachievable (given that it has to meet her satisfaction, an unknown quantity). Here are her original and changed versions:
  • "demonstrate 1 (one) non-self-referencing piece of evidence for his views"
  • "demonstrate to my satisfaction that there is the possibility of creationism by a GOD being more likely than evolution from basic chemical constituents" (her emphases).
I do thank her that she weaselled out of it before I spent the effort responding to the challenge instead of after.
Philip J. Rayment 11:20, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
Whether someone agrees with you or not Philip, it would be hard to say that you can't support your views in a well thought out fashion. I would imagine that anyone trying to label you as a 'nutter' as a flippant cover all statement would be hard pressed to meet you in any kind of contest of equals that did not include you conceding before the contest began. Learn together 11:49, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
"No Phil, I won't take you on on your own terms. All I will do is say: If you can demonstrate to my satisfaction that there is the possibility of creationism by a GOD being more likely than evolution from basic chemical constituents then I'll never comment on your absolute nuttery ever again. {{User:SusanG/sig/sig}} 11:01, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

How is that weaseling out? Admittedly, I haven't had your years of "expertise" at defending the indefensible & so could possibly be bamboozled by you. The basic premise of your "creationist" ideas (GOD)is so ridiculous that I don't consider it worthy of serious consideration. (signed) SusanG

It's "weaselling out" because you were not willing to follow through on the challenge you put, without offering any reason other than trying to make out that I somehow changed the terms, yet with not even an attempt to point out how I did so (beyond the acknowledged attempt to clarify). And all you now offer in your defence is mockery and unsubstantiated rhetoric. And a tacit admission that you're not actually up to debating the issue. Philip J. Rayment 11:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
Oh - it occurs to me that you'll call me for my lack of years of expertise in discussing Creationism; that's simply because I never gave the notion the slightest notice until I came across the morass that is Conservapedia. In a reasonably Rational country like the UK, we treat such ideas with the contempt they deserve. (signed) SusanG
In other words, "I don't need to study the issue, because I already know it's wrong without knowing anything about it". Isn't that called "anti-intellectualism" or something? It's certainly not reasoned or rational. Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
If you had any such evidence you'd give it without condition. - my point I think. And no I'm not a philosopher so you could possibly talk rings round me, with your 30 years of experience, I'm a hitherto unconcerned office worker who is dismayed at the pernicious attempts to push the creationist POV. The word nutter might have been over the top, but your beliefs are, to me, on a par with those who seriously believe that they're Napoleon or that the earth is flat. You're possibly a very nice man who's kind to animals and good company on any other topic but I can't allow this to make your really ridiculous beliefs any more likely. (signed) 'SusanG
'Nutter' = One who has a viewpoint that you are already sure is absurd - if you actually took the time to look into the issue. Learn together 16:47, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Final reply (I hope)

My intention here was a clarify a few points about me that were misunderstood or wrongly presumed (the first of which there's still been no recognition of!). I had no intention of starting an ongoing discussion, so I will try and make this my last comment on this matter.

My reason for not posting "elsewhere" is simply that, once I start, I will spend far too much time responding to as many silly comments as I come across. I spend too much time doing that here, without doing it there as well.

I note in passing that one or two have promised that I would be treated civilly. Whilst I have no doubt that they mean it, I do wonder how civilly some others will treat me, given the vitriol that's already been expended. However, the potential for being abused is not the deterrent. Rather, abuse merely indicates that the abuser probably has no decent argument to make.

As for me giving evidence in support of my views, I have done so in other pages here, and plenty is available in such places as CreationOnTheWeb. The reasons I don't do more of this are because...

  • Most anti-creationists are not actually interested in the evidence.
    • Rather, their call for evidence is merely a soundbite to suggest that there is none, despite all the evidence available to those who really are interested.
    • Very often, they don't argue from the evidence. Most of their arguments take the form of (a) arguing that evolution has been proved (but without actually offering that proof: more of an argumentum ad science-community populum (to coin a term), or (b) arguing that creationism is by definition unscientific (in which case, why worry about the evidence anyway?).
  • In one sense, the issue is not about the evidence. Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence, but different explanations of the evidence.

Therefore, much of my debating is to explain these points. For me to usefully quote evidence, the person I'm talking to needs to understand these points. Until that happens, it is often fruitless talking about the evidence itself.

As for imposing "conditions", I've often had the experience before where a challenge is issued, I meet it, but my answer is dismissed by shifting the goalposts. So I like to have the goalposts concreted in place before I take aim. And vague challenges such as "show us the evidence" amount to standing goalposts on rafts floating in a river—almost impossible to kick a goal.

There's a couple of things I won't respond to at the present time, simply to avoid dragging this discussion out. They include the repeated claim that I believe Christianity to be true because the Bible says so, and the argument about agreeing on which religion is true. But I will ask, if the claim that 2+2=4 is only true because everyone agrees, does it stop being true once someone disagrees?

One person intimated that with creationism, we would not have a world with satellite navigation, etc. This is patently false, given that (a) it was creationists who founded many of the scientific disciplines, and (b) creationists have been and are involved in that field. For example, Wernher von Braun, a key figure in the Apollo missions was a creationist, and YEC John Hartnett's work involves the atomic clocks necessary for communication with satellites. And no, if I was in a position of power, I would not remove—or allow others to remove—from the curriculum anything that opposed YEC. Such things (e.g. evolution) are widely believed, and I would want people to learn about them. Unlike evolutionists, though, I would not censor opposing views, but allow both sides to be taught, and allow the problems with evolution to be explained. Unlike the evolutionists, I have enough confidence in creationism to allow it to stand on its own feet without censoring the opposing viewpoint. The current problem is that most of you simply have next to no idea about what creationism teaches, and are therefore arguing from a state of ignorance.

Philip J. Rayment 10:52, 27 May 2008 (EDT)


A workable agreement to disagree would be for the Evolutionists to withdraw their demand that Evolution be taught as "true". Rather they might agree that schools will tell pupils what percentage of biologists accept the theory (presumably 99.8%), as well as what percentage of scientists in other fields accept it (only 95%). They might also agree that schools will tell pupils about the arguments that Intelligent Design makes in opposing "unguided evolution", again indicating the percentages of biologists and other scientists who accept or reject this theory.
But there is a political question to be resolved: Shall schools indoctrinate American children with the philosophy of materialism, even when their parents want them to be raised with religious belief (which contradicts that philosophy)? Or shall schools teach children ABOUT materialism without pressing them to accept it? --Ed Poor Talk 08:18, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
The evolutionists have clearly demonstrated that they will not allow any weakening of their "evolution is true" view.
Creation Ministries International are, quite rightly I believe, opposed to legislation mandating that a creationary (or Intelligent Design?) view be taught, even alongside an evolutionary view. This is because an atheist teaching this will put their own spin on it anyway. Instead, they believe that legislation should protect a teacher wanting to teach something other than "evolution is true", whether that be the scientific evidence consistent with creation, the problems with evolution, or etc.
Philip J. Rayment 08:32, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

This is an interesting thread. You know Philip, after reading here and on other sites and did something that you say most evolutionists wont. I compared the evidence with an open mind. I dont find creationism convincing however but there you have it. I mention this so you dont believe that all old earth evolutionists are stubbon with their 'faith'. AdenJ 16:35, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Good on you. Any generalisations I make about evolutionists' faith are just that: generalisations. I know that there are a few exceptions who really do take the time to acquaint themselves with the opposing viewpoint. However, I wonder (in my ignorance) just how much you've read on the subject, particularly from the creationists (i.e. not just read about creationism from anti-creationist sources). Philip J. Rayment 10:56, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

I read several books Philip. Not about creationism but books by creationists. One by 50 scientists giving their reasons behind switching to creationism. Another called 'Combating the Evolution Lie' not to mention all the web reasources. However, as I said, Hasnt changed my view though. It just doesnt convince me but, there ya go. AdenJ 15:25, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

The one by 50 scientists is In six days, by John Ashton. I know a few of the scientists in the book. The other I'm not familiar with (I initially thought you meant The Lie, by Ken Ham, but then realised that's probably not the case. A Google search turned up The creation story: combating the evolution lie, by John Tasker), nor with the author, so I can't comment on how good a book it is. Is that all (apart from the web stuff)? It's a fair start, but hardly enough to get a good understanding of the creationist position and arguments (without knowing what those "web resources" are of course). If you are interested in taking this a bit further, I suggest some of the on-line material listed here:
  • The Creation Answers Book This is a "must-read"
  • Refuting Evolution 1 Another "must-read"
  • Refuting Evolution 2 Another "must-read"
  • Refuting Compromise Intended for compromising Christians (old-earthers, gap theorists, etc.), so not so particularly applicable for you (I'm assuming), and in any case only a sample is on-line.
  • In Six Days I wouldn't have listed this quite as a "must-read", but you've read it already.
  • One Blood If you're really interested in reading up or have an interest in racism, you could read this, but otherwise skip it.
  • Skeptics vs. Creationists You can skip this also, unless you are interested in reading a formal written debate between leading creationists and members of the Australian Skeptics. It's only 48 pages, though, so wouldn't take all that long.
I'm not pretending that these will change your mind. A committed atheist or committed evolutionist is no more likely going to change their mind than a committed creationist. But at least you could avoid making a lot of the ignorant mistakes that many anticreationists make.
One final comment (and this is for other anticreationists as well, including those to which this section of my talk page was directed): This is a big field. We're not talking about whether or not Archaeopteryx was a fraud, or why the wombat pouch faces the rear, but the entire field of the origins of living things (i.e. including the origin of species, not just the origin of life itself), cosmology, parts of anthropology, geology, certainly paleontology, etc. etc. So it's not the sort of thing you can get a good understanding of by reading a couple of web pages, or even a couple of books. Most evolutionists get evolution thrust at them in school, in the mass media, in scientific journals and magazines, etc. That is, they get it day in, day out, for years, up to and including a lifetime. But most will never or almost never get to read, see, or hear material from an opposing viewpoint, unless they specially go looking for it. And reading a couple of articles or even books by creationists is nowhere near enough to provide any sort of balance to all that evolutionary indoctrination.
Philip J. Rayment 20:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

took your suggestion

Dear PJR,

I took the suggestion of deborah and you regarding the Cline and Myers issue. I do have some excellent news to tell you in regards to the atheism article and it fits with your and deborah's suggestion better. I am guessing now that I delinked from Cline's site that he will drop down to a Google #11 or #12 position for atheism. I think he used to be around #6 or #7 for the Google search atheism. Conservative 17:53, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

  • My prediction came true, Austin Cline's website is now ranked #11 by Google now that I followed your suggestion and the suggestion of deborah. There is some exciting stuff I am going to tell you about privately in regards to the whole theism-atheism issue on the internet. Conservative 19:18, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
I've taken a break from editing after a ban threat from Aschlafly and an attempt to more properly prioritize my personal projects (oops, alliteration attack), but I've been casually observing the recent changes and I have to say that from a neutral point of view, your apparent vendetta against Cline is taking a rather manic edge. You've never personally interacted with him, correct? Wandering 19:34, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

Mattyk's edits

Hi, you just blocked User:Mattyk. I undid three of his edits. Did I well or should I always ask first, even in case of a "vandal" like him? Thanks, SilvioB 12:06, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

The first couple of his edits that I looked at did not appear to necessarily be vandalism, but the third made it clear. As long as it is vandalism, then yes, it is the right thing to simply revert as soon as you see it. Thanks for that. Philip J. Rayment 22:48, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Vandal

Hi Philip - not sure if you're online, but maybe you'd better stop Marxlol - he's already had a go at Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and a couple of others, but I've reverted them already. Thanks in advance. --JessicaTOhayo gozaimasu! 11:13, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

I see another sysop got him. Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

quick note

Dear PJR,

I found an Aussie to quote in the atheism article: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_Suicide See what you can do about replacing the American flag from the CP logo in favor of a more universal logo.  :) Conservative 07:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Administrator

Is there any basic requirements for becoming an administrator? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alfred123 (talk)

I've just posted a welcome and list of links on your talk page. See the Editor's Guide listed there, and the link from that to the User Rights page. Philip J. Rayment 08:58, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks.

Alfred123 11:27, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks

Hi there,

Thanks for removing the troll who was posting his nonsense on my page.

Alfred123 11:17, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Attempts At Accuracy

Philip, per your comments here concerning the accuracy of Time's reporting, and its contrast to CP's accuracy, I was interested in your views on the following edit [1] in which ASchlafly repeatedly removes information that U of Chicago confirms that a Senior Lecturer is considered a Professor, making the edit that Obama falsely claimed to be a professor inaccurate. In this instance, it seems CP needs to decide between having a conservative viewpoint or an accurate viewpoint. Oftentimes those two viewpoints can be reconciled, but with the number of reverts of that clarification, it seems a choice needs to be made. Again, looking at your comments regarding the accuracy of Time, I was interested to hear your thoughts on this matter. Thanks for your time!--Jareddr 11:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

American politics is not something that I take that much of an interest in, and I have not been watching the Barack Obama page at all. Looking at it now, it does seem to be something of a murky situation, with some merit to both sides of the argument. Perhaps Obama is being a little misleading to describe himself as a professor, but he appears to have a fair bit of legitimacy to do so. Personally, I would put this (the claim that he is not a professor) in the category of an argument not worth having. By way of analogy, Creation Ministries International lists some arguments that creationists should not use[2], divided into two categories: Ones which definitely should not be used (because they are wrong or baseless), and ones that "are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use". In another article related to that one[3], they make this point:
If these arguments don’t convince fellow creationists, why would any creationist think they are going to convince evolutionists?
The same principle applies here. The argument that Obama is not a professor is not a good one to use, even if there is some merit to it. And if it is used at all, it should be a minor criticism that he misleads or overuses the title, or something like that, and should include the full details (i.e. include the quote from the university), even if in a footnote.
Philip J. Rayment 23:53, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Template:Stub

Can you temporarily unlock Template:Stub -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Done.Philip J. Rayment 22:47, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for fixing the coding but can you temporarily unlock Template:Stub again so as to put up the better version of Template:Stub -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Done (again). I'm not sure how it's actually better, but... Philip J. Rayment 10:30, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

My Account

Could I please have my account activated please? Not sure where I should have posted this sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lamb12 (talk)

Your account is active, else you wouldn't have been able to put this message here. Philip J. Rayment 08:32, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

"Schlafly Scrutiny"

I don't know what kind of power trip you are on, but I'm pretty sure in moderating you either delete comments entirely or leave them. You never edit them to your own liking.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carafe (talk)

If someone uses a swear word in a message, I would delete just the swear word rather than the entire comment, so your claim is incorrect. However, I should have left a comment that part of the message was deleted by an administrator. I didn't mean for the moderated comment to be misleading, as I now realise that it would have been, and I would go and add that comment now, if it were not for the fact that you've replaced it with a better comment. So I apologise for that, and in return you can apologise for accusing me of being on a power trip. Philip J. Rayment 23:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

You Blocked Me (By Way of an Explanation)

I didn't intend to modify your comment on the "Arab American" talk page - I wanted to "copy" some text to quote you, but "cut" it instead, making it look like I deliberately took something out. While I do appreciate the fact that you didn't lock me up for five years - or infinity - as others might have, I do wish we could have simply worked out a stupid little misunderstanding. Alas. AliceBG 15:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

You could always have written him an email at any time explaining your situation by choosing "E-mail this user" from the bottom right of the screen under "edit console". Learn together 16:06, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't give my e-mail address out to strangers on the internet. AliceBG 16:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

AliceBG, you've put this on my talk page, but it was Learn together's comment that you cut and it was Learn together that blocked you, not me.

Learn together, unless AliceBG has a pattern of doing this, I think her explanation sounds quite plausible (perhaps you already agree?), although as the block is over, it's academic now I guess.

Back to you, AliceBG, I can understand you not wanting to give out your e-mail address to "strangers", but surely there's also someone here who is no longer a complete stranger and who you could have felt comfortable e-mailing? Also, getting a free e-mail address for strangers, that can be discarded if it becomes a problem, is not at all hard. Of course if you prefer to wait for the block to be over, that's your choice.

Philip J. Rayment 17:09, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Hi Phil - my apologies to both you and LT - I could've sworn it was you who blocked me - and you're right, it is academic now. thanks for the understanding.AliceBG 17:13, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
I didn't catch it either. It seemed out of the ordinary - Philip so seldom blocks. As for what occurred before, that doesn't matter now. Blocking is only a way to warn of unacceptable conduct, but with the hope of bringing about positive results. Any user who wants to positively contribute is encouraged to do so, and of course that includes you. Learn together 19:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Email

Please see my recent Email to you. Thanks Learn together 19:07, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm at work now. I'll see it in about seven hours' time. Philip J. Rayment 22:09, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

KAL 007 Feature article (proposed)

Dear Philip and other members of the Feature article Committee (Can you pass it on to them, Philip?), I have an unusual request. I have proposed Korean Airlines Flight 007 as a feature article and there is 1 agreement to it so far. My request is this; If accepted, could it be put up for an extended time, and that beginning soon? the reason for this request- Sept. 1, will be the 25th year of the shootdown. It is a particularly important year as the U.S. government will be releasing classified material - if it deems it not to endanger National Security. Very soon there will be increased research and media interest in locating sources. I think that many will turn to Conservapedia, or shall I say, many of the right type of people to pursue it. I think that the word of mouth factor will be operating well from Conservapedia users to the non Conservapedia users and there will be an infux of readers at this time. Thank you for considering thisBert Schlossberg 09:57, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

You should post this on the Featured articles talk page. However, although I would support timing it to coincide with an anniversary, I'm not clear if you are suggesting posting it before the anniversary, and if so, why. And personally I'd also be hesitant to post it for an extended period, so I suggest that you try and make a clearer case for why that should be so, and for how long. Keep up the good work, though! Philip J. Rayment 10:04, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Autoblocks of User:KevinM

I noticed that User:KevinM was blocked twice by Conservapedia:Guard_dog today, even though his edits were all quick reverts of vandals' edits. Ironically, the guard dog failed to catch the original vandals, but that's not the point I want to make. Perhaps the Guard Dog should be programmed with an exception that if user X is only reverting many recent edits by user Y, then don't block user X as he is probably stopping a vandal. Just a suggestion to prevent vigilant users from getting punished for doing good :-) Foxtrot 18:11, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

User:KevinM also seems to have addressed this on HenryS' talk page.Foxtrot 18:14, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
There was a certain amount of irony in my recent block, but this situation (I was blocked, vandal wasn't) shows how vandals can work around the script's triggers. So adding whitelist behavior rules would only give them more room to work with, such as using misleading edit summaries (the McCain vandal actually used them already). I would approve of a user-based whitelist, though. So people who were greenlighted by sysops would be immune against it. --KevinM 18:19, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
The whitelist is a good idea, Kevin, and much easier to implement. --DinsdaleP 18:51, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

There was a recent case where a user vandalised a number of articles, with another vandal immediately making further changes. In fact in this case an administrator was initially fooled into thinking that the second vandals was reverting. Guard Dog stopped both of them.

The trouble with a user whitelist is in making sure that names of all legitimate editors are added to it. That's not to say that it shouldn't have one—or even that it doesn't have one—but to point out that a whitelist is still not going to always prevent this type of problem. And of course KevinM being a very new user would not likely be on any such whitelist yet anyway.

One the whole, Guard Dog blocks more vandals than legitimate editors, and in most cases the legitimate editors are unblocked pretty quickly simply by an administrator noticing the block. Personally, I think the number of invalid blocks is acceptable, although improvements will continue to be made where feasible. And of course there is a standing apology on the Guard dog page for anybody blocked incorrectly, which I hope KevinM has accepted.

Philip J. Rayment 22:49, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the clarification. Both your response and the ones above it seem to indicate that it would only make it easier for to vandalize pages. I understand completely. Foxtrot 00:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

A request

Philip,

There's a bit of dispute going on over whether some of the content in the Dungeons and Dragons article is appropriate. Specifically, a number of posters have taken issue with whether a warning about potential issues the game may pose for Christians is appropriate in an encyclopedia. I feel that the article as written is a pretty reasonable compromise; however, I thought it might be best to get the opinion of a SysOp. Since you have a reputation for fairness, would you be willing to take a look at the article and offer some guidance on the talk page?

Thanks in advance if you can help. --Benp 23:09, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I'll have a look when I get a chance. Conservapedia was down for much of tonight when I might have had a chance. Remind me in 24 hours if I forget. Philip J. Rayment 11:34, 24 June 2008 (EDT)


Appreciate it. Thank you! --Benp 15:58, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks

Thank you for unblocking me, sir. Ultimahero 00:01, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, once again, for unblocking me. Ultimahero 04:41, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Hannity and Colmes -> Hannity & Colmes

The current name of this encyclopedia's Hannity & Colmes article is Hannity and Colmes. The Fox News Website seems to favor "Hannity & Colmes". The page should be renamed. --MichaelK 15:11, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Article names with ampersands cause problems, which is why we don't do it they way you suggest. (Although I wonder if that's changed now that the software has been upgraded.) Philip J. Rayment 21:17, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
Wikipedia seems okay with anpersands in its article titles.--MichaelK 22:34, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
I'll do some experiments to see if it's changed. Philip J. Rayment 22:38, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
It looks like it does work now. You'll now find the article at Hannity & Colmes! Philip J. Rayment 22:52, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
P.S. There's a couple of links [4] to the page that you might like to fix up to point directly to the article (I wouldn't worry about the one in the archive). Philip J. Rayment 22:55, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Send to Deletedpage

Hi Philip. I scanned the Wanted Pages list and noticed some articles that should probably be redirected to Conservapedia:Deletedpage. In trying to find out why they weren't, I also noticed the article on Sem-n was not redirecting there either, although it at least had a page. I won't type out the full names because I don't want them to show up in searches or trigger a block. Articles that need redirects: P---philia, So--my, N---er, Se---lity?, Premarit-- S--, Conservapedia:AFD Sathieism, Conservapedia:AFD Bam Margera, Conservapedia:AFD Bertie Higgins.

Other pages that should be blocked from creation: Vib--tor, Dil--, Phall-- (noun and adj), Handj--, and probably a handful of others. I think whatever settings you did for Oral --- would be appropriate. --Foxtrot 17:57, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Foxtrot, I'll look into it when I get a chance. However, a bit of explanation.
Protecting and redirecting to Conservapedia:Deletedpage was a (rather clever) way of preventing someone from recreating the pages whilst not having it show up in Random page, searches, etc., but is no longer necessary as the latest version of the software, to which Conservapedia upgraded recently, allows us to protect non-existent pages. So I recently deleted some such redirects and protected them, which is what I did with the last one you mentioned. (Some critics of this site jumped to the conclusion that I'd gone on a spree of deciding which terms should not be allowed, whereas all I did was change the way they were protected.)
There are also user and user talk pages of former users that are redirected there, which is unnecessary, as they wouldn't show up in Random pages, etc. anyway. So I've also been unredirecting them.
Either you're mistaken or I'm supplying the wrong missing letter(s), but the first one you mention was deleted (had been a redirect) and protected about two weeks ago.
Personally, I have no problem with articles on some of the terms that are currently protected and some that you mention, assuming that we can write an article about them in a family-friendly way (which, admittedly, I haven't tried). So I'll be a bit reluctant to prevent the creation of ones that aren't already protected, at least if the term is a proper one (a slang or offensive term I would be happy to protect). But I'll see what other administrators think.
Philip J. Rayment 20:35, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Ampersand

I believe Ampersand was erroneously blocked by GuardDog. -MarieB

Yep, fixed. Fortunately my wife's dog woke me up and I checked the computer whilst awake! Philip J. Rayment 14:41, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Charles Darwin talk page

If you want to weigh in and further research the issues I just raised on the Charles Darwin talk page, it would be appreciated. I may not be able to come back to the issue for at least a week or more. Conservative 23:42, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

YEC article. request for assistance

Dear PJR,

I am not wiki saavy enough to fix the footnote 62 problem for the conservapedia young earth creationism article. Your assistance is requested. Conservative 21:57, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I can explain the problem, but I think it will need TerryH to fix it.
There are, in a sense, three ways of using the <ref> tags:
  • The normal way: <ref>reference text</ref>
  • By giving a name: <ref name="Ref-name">reference text</ref>
  • By referring to a named reference; <ref name="Ref-name" />.
In the last two cases, all references of the same name get lumped together, reducing the number of separate references (see footnote 61 of the YEC article for an example). The problem in this case is that the full named reference is missing, so that the subsequent "empty" named references have nothing to link to.
This particular problem has been there ever since you pasted that "Specific Arguments" section in. From memory, you moved that from a stand-alone article that TerryH had created, and he had in turn copied the material from his own contributions on CreationWiki. So whether you dropped the full named reference when moving it or whether he dropped it in copying from CreationWiki, I don't know, but we need to locate and add in the full named reference. (The name being "nwcn" would suggest that it has something to do with the Northwest Creation Network, which runs CreationWiki.)
Philip J. Rayment 23:04, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Thanks. Conservative 19:42, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

My absence

Some would have noticed that I have not been active on Conservapedia much lately. There is no single reason for this; rather it was a combination of factors (which I've listed in roughly chronological order).

  • An increasing dissatisfaction with Conservapedia
  • A sudden medical condition arising in my wife, requiring her hospitalisation for nearly a week, followed by weeks of recovery at home.
  • Problems with my computer, including temporary problems with Internet access, requiring me to twice wipe my hard disk and reinstall everything.
  • Conservapedia's problems with posting.
  • Being busy with a series of creationary seminars and meetings.

It's not the first time that, having had a forced break from something, I find it difficult to get back into it, partly because of all the catching up involved, and partly because I enjoy having some time to spend on other things that get neglected when I spend so much time on (in this case) Conservapedia. But I'm back now. I think. Philip J. Rayment 22:28, 14 August 2008 (EDT)


Philip,

Good to see you back. I've enjoyed our discussions and debates in the past, and I look forward to having similar discussions with you in the future. Best wishes and prayers to your wife for a speedy recovery. --Benp 13:09, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Sorry to hear about the missus, PJR. Hope she's OK - sounds like it must've been pretty scary for a bit. :( --Frieda 14:30, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
So sorry to hear your wife has been unwell, Philip. She is in my thoughts and I pray for a speedy recovery. God bless. --KotomiTUser formerly known as JessicaT 15:09, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Best wishes to your wife PJR. We at the unmentionable site send you all our thoughts and wish her a swift recovery. Rushistheman 16:20, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Seconded. Your family will be in my thoughts, and I wish you all the best as she recovers. -DinsdaleP 21:25, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the comments, both here and by e-mail. My wife has been recovering remarkably well (no doubt helped by (the recipient of) all the prayers for her). She has to have a major follow-up operation in the next few months. Philip J. Rayment 04:11, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Welcome back! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:06, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Dissatisfaction

Note: This was moved from the section above about my absence. The first post, by Aschlafly, was the first reply to my 'absence' post.

Welcome back, Philip! We missed you. All the best to your wife.
As to your "increasing dissatisfaction with Conservapedia," the site is not trying to be all things to all people. It speaks directly and truthfully about many controversial issues, ranging from gun control to politicians. This site does not allow distraction by critics of particular religious denominations who try to restate doctrine of churches that they reject, because a critic does not speak for a church.
The only difference between this site now from when it started is that now it has a great deal more information and insights, and the people who helped build it are better off for their efforts. Perhaps it's surprising that the site has been able to remain true to its goal. Godspeed to you and thanks for your efforts.--Aschlafly 23:08, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
I didn't say (in this post) just what the dissatisfaction was, and the one that you presume is just one issue. As for speaking "truthfully", well that, or who decides that, is one of the concerns. Philip J. Rayment 03:12, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
The truth is a matter of logic and evidence, as often confirmed by a majority of people who embrace that approach open-mindedly. I thought I identified above the bones of contention, and am not aware of any others. In each case there was an attempt by a one or two to go in a different direction or dilute the truth about an important issue. Others objected more to the attempts than even I did.--Aschlafly 08:46, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
This was most definitely not intended to be a discussion about my first dot-point!
But I agree that truth is a matter of logic and evidence; the problem is when that has become subservient to opinions. So I've just changed an article back to what the evidence supports.
Another concern is something you inadvertently mentioned above. You said that Conservapedia speaks on many controversial issues "from gun control to politicians". Paraphrasing that, you are saying that Conservapedia speaks on many controversial issued from political issues to politicians. It should be much more than just about politics (and to some extent is, fortunately), but there is an over-emphasis on this aspect, in my humble opinion Philip J. Rayment 11:11, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Philip, it was your first dot-point, and then one of your first edits up on your return was to explain (incorrectly based on my research) what the view of another church is. So respectfully I think my reply above was right on target.
Your criticism that "Conservapedia" has an "over-emphasis" on political issues is an odd statement. More likely the real problem is that you don't like what Conservapedia explains about political issues, such as gun control.--Aschlafly 11:27, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes, it was my first dot-point, arranged chronologically, as I said. I'm not saying that I'm not prepared to discuss this issue, nor that I object to it being discussed here; rather, just pointing out that it was not my intention to have this discussion here and now. Sorry if I made it sound like a criticism. (I've now rearranged things to make this discussion a separate section.)
I took your "distraction by critics of particular religious denominations who try to restate doctrine of churches that they reject" to be a reference to the Mormon Church issue, which I did not particularly have in mind when I wrote the comment above (although it would be one of the issues).
As for my edit to Catholic views on creationism, I was applying your standard, of the truth being determined by the evidence. Several people, including me, have supplied evidence that the official translation was changed. You dispute that, but supply no evidence of that. So if the truth is to be determined on the evidence, as you have said, then why did you revert the article to be contrary to the evidence?
As for political issues, no, it's not an odd statement at all. It's an opinion, based on the amount of effort that goes into such issues on Conservapedia. Politically, you and I would probably agree 90% of the time, so it's a stretch to claim that the "real problem is that [I] don't like what Conservapedia explains about political issues". Sure, I don't agree with some of the things said about gun control, and with some other details, but for the most part I would agree (and you would tend to notice my disagreements more than my agreements, because I would have far less to say about the agreed parts).
I fully accept that individuals will have favourite topics that they wish to write about, and I am no exception. But I would point out (see my user page) that apart from creation/evolution and biblical type issues, I have written about Australian matters such as food (pavlova, Vegemite), politicians, and cultural matters (e.g. Carols by Candlelight, Furphy), railways, computer programming, general topics (Fire Fighting, fence), science fiction, and so on, as well as a fair bit of 'housekeeping' type stuff, such as templates, moving (renaming) articles, fixing links, and so on. As I said, I accept that individuals will have favourite topics, and I would criticise nobody for just writing on their one favourite topic, but overall, the main Conservapedia writers concentrate on a few main areas—politics being a prime one—rather than us producing an encyclopedia with a widespread and balanced coverage of topics.
Philip J. Rayment 03:34, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
Philip, despite days of explaining and discussing this, you still persist in falsely claiming that the Vatican newspaper changed its official translation of John Paul II's statement. It didn't. I'm not going to waste more time correcting your misstatement of this simple and obvious fact. Obviously people who support evolution or dislike the church are going to distort the facts. Just as obviously, we don't allow such distortions here.
I doubt that you agree with conservatives "90% of the time" on political issues. When you aren't adamant in pushing your criticism of the Catholic Church, you've been attacking the conservative Mormon Church. Your position in favor of gun control appears identical to that of Barack Obama. The fact that the leftists have taken over Australia does not seem to trouble you, and you seem in denial about gun control lies facilitated that takeover. In fact, I can't recall a single conservative edit by you here. That's fine, you're welcome to your opinions and we value your input, but this site is not going to change its principles.--Aschlafly 09:28, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)"you still persist in falsely claiming that the Vatican newspaper changed its official translation of John Paul II's statement. It didn't": And yet you have provided no evidence of that claim (that they didn't change it), when there is evidence that they did change it. You said above that we determine truth according to the evidence, so where is the evidence?

"I doubt that you agree with conservatives "90% of the time" on political issues.": I maintain that I do.

"When you aren't adamant in pushing your criticism of the Catholic Church..": WHEN have I pushed criticism of the Catholic Church? The edits to the Catholic Views of Creation are simply an attempt to document the facts, not to criticise it. If I wanted to criticise it, I'd talk about worshipping Mary or something, not their apparent acceptance of evolution, which is also accepted by churches that I agree with.

"Your position in favor of gun control appears identical to that of Barack Obama.": I'm unaware of Obama's position, so I couldn't comment on that. But I certainly disagree with him on abortion, infanticide, and I'm sure numerous other matters. It wouldn't be surprising if I agreed with him on something.

"The fact that the leftists have taken over Australia does not seem to trouble you...": Oh? What on Earth gives you that idea?

"...you seem in denial about gun control lies facilitated that takeover.": If a non-Catholic can't comment on things Catholic because they are supposedly not sufficiently familiar with them, then perhaps a non-Australian should not comment on things Australian for the same reason.

"In fact, I can't recall a single conservative edit by you here.": Then I suggest that you have a poor memory. What about all my edits in favour of creation? Or my comments in favour of prayer in schools? Or my edits opposed to the modern incarnation of church-state separation? Or my edits defending the truth and accuracy of the Bible? Or do "liberals" do those things too?

Philip J. Rayment 09:58, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Wow, I know nothing about the above dispute, but claiming that there is any connection between the election of the Rudd government and gun control, or that gun control has been a major issue at all during the last years of the Howard government, is ridiculous at best. NormanS 10:16, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Just FYI, according to the references on the Vatican website, "more than a hypothesis" seems to be the correct translation:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/archivio/s.v.105_cultural_values/part2.pdf

Xyrophile 22:22, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, although those two links had already been posted on the article's talk page. Philip J. Rayment 22:42, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Operational Science

In your introduction for the article on "Catholic views on creationism," you note that creation is not contradicted by operational science. Creation, however, is a topic pertaining to "origins science," as laid out in the "Natural science" article. How exactly do you interpret this distinction? --IlTrovatore 22:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

I think you are suggesting that I'm comparing apples with oranges, and I did briefly wonder the same thing myself. My intention was to point out that "science" does not contradict the creation account because (a) the creation account is a claim about history, whereas "science" (in the normal sense) is a means of studying the present. But because there is such a thing called "historical science", which is no doubt due to science being used to assist the study of history and misused to try to determine history, I was clarifying that I was talking about what is referred to in the Natural Science article as "operational" science, i.e. the observations, tests, experiments, and reproductions (reproducibility) that characterises the essence of science. Is that clear? I'm open to considering alternative wording. Philip J. Rayment 23:07, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

The fact is that operational science and historical science are fundamentally linked. For example, a scientist observing in real time the rate of decay of a radioactive element may use that observation to perform a radiometric dating on an object whereby the age of the object is calculated to be much greater than the age of the Earth as given by Genesis. If a creationist attempts to argue that the rate of radioactive decay has changed over time, in which case radiometric dating is really an erroneous scientific method, then, in effect, he or she is making the epistemic assumption that operational scientific principles are not consistent over time. Such an assumption undermines the methodology of science itself, therefore rendering a statement such as "Genesis is compatible with operational science" a contradiction in terms. That is my issue with the wording of the intro. --IlTrovatore 23:15, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Claiming that rate of radioactive decay has changed over time (which is only one possible rebuttal to the uniformitarian claim) does not require scientific principles are not consistent over time. That the radioactive decay rate is constant is an assumption, not a principle. You might as well argue that proposing that the boiling point of water changes depending on the atmospheric pressure requires proposing that scientific principles change with atmospheric pressure. They don't of course; it's just that, in the case of the boiling point of water, we (a) observe the difference, and (b) understand the mechanism. With radioactive decay, we (a) don't observe the difference because we cannot go back in time to measure it, and (b) don't understand the mechanism. However, we have observed (and induced) small changes in radioactive decay rates, so we already know that they are not always absolutely constant. Philip J. Rayment 02:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Featured articles

Any comment about the new proposed articles for featuring? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:49, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm still catching up on stuff. I hope to get to that as soon as I can. Philip J. Rayment 10:14, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Fine, nice to have the opportunity to work with you again. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:54, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Thank You, Philip

I sincerely appreciate you explaining the situation to DeanS, and while we will have our disagreements, you will never have cause to regret helping me get back on the site. Thanks. --DinsdaleP 20:06, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Small Question

Philip, I've searched for a while to an answer for this question, and I figured you would be the best person to ask seeing as how you're from Oz. Why is it that in the Olympics, the Ozzies wear green and gold as opposed to a red, white, and blue (some combination of those three) uniform? Hope all is well with your wife. I'm a nurse here in the states, so if there's anything I can help you clarify, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks for the time. --Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 23:02, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

I couldn't give a definitive answer to that question. There's a fair bit of sentiment against the Australian flag (by those not interested in our heritage), including, as it does, the Union Jack in the corner. We've never felt that the flag colours (I assume that's why you mentioned those colours) are representative colours for Australia (partly because the same colours are used by other nations that many Aussies have a cultural cringe about). Green and gold were selected, I believe, to represent the green of the countryside in fertile areas, and the sands of our extensive deserts, and this seems to have caught on.
Thanks for your kind words. My wife has had continued pains, which we now believe that we know the cause of, but is otherwise still recovering well.
Philip J. Rayment 23:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
If you're interested in more information about the colors, you can check out this Aussie site: It's an Honour - Symbols - National Colours. They say: " Long associated with Australian sporting achievements, the national colours have strong environmental connections. Gold conjures images of Australia’s beaches, mineral wealth, grain harvests and the fleece of Australian wool. Green evokes the forests, eucalyptus trees and pastures of the Australian landscape.
Green and gold are also the colours of Australia’s national floral emblem – the golden wattle." Also, the green and gold were formally recognized as the national colors in 1984. The things you learn! --Jareddr 09:19, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for that. I do recall now hearing about the wattle connection. And when I referred to desert sand, I now realise that it would have been beach sand! Wrong sand! (Well, we have plenty of both!) Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for your quick responses, guys. I figured a citizen of the country in question would be the one to ask! --Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 11:12, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

A Question

I'm not entirely sure that this is how you go about resolving these disputes, so pardon my ignorance on the matter, but I find DeanS's behavior wholly inappropriate: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DeanS#IP.27s_ban

"YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO QUESTION ME!" Is not how sysops are supposed to conduct themselves, unless I am mistaken.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jirby (talk)

I'll respond on the Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse page where DLerner has queried your subsequent blocking. Philip J. Rayment 22:35, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Another Question

G'day Philip...I have just seen your edit revision on Newton where you revert the American spelling back to the original British. Does that mean I can revert those same changes to US English that I find on my articles? I stress on articles I have written. It tends to get on my wick when someone with nothing better to do wanders down an article I have written changing all the esses to zeds (sorry, zees) and pulling out all the u's. Cheers AlanE 22:52, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

The way I handle this is to use British, Australian, American, etc. spellings for articles particularly relevant to those countries (e.g. using American spelling in Australia would be inappropriate). Otherwise, use the spelling that the original author used. So assuming the articles are not particularly British, etc., ones, if you originally used American spellings, then not only is it appropriate to revert to them, but whoever changed them is in violation of the Commandments (see footnote 7). Philip J. Rayment 23:03, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
Oh hang on, when you asked if you "can revert those same changes to US English", I took it to mean that you wanted to change them back to US English. I now think that you mean that you want to revert changes that changed them to US English! In this case, the same answer applies, except that the commandments don't actually cover this. Philip J. Rayment 23:06, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

What I mean is...if someone were to edit the Vasco da Gama thingie I wrote this morning, changing my Australian English to American, would I be able to change it back without being jumped upon from a great height by one of the resident banners? AlanE 23:22, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

I can't really speak for what others will do, but... yes. Philip J. Rayment 03:09, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks...AlanE 17:51, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Karajou

I don't know what, if anything, has been said in private, but I urge you to contact Karajou and ask him to reconsider his decision. We need people of his calibre here. Bugler 12:46, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

DirkB

Why is this user unblocked? This is obviously his sockpuppet. HenryS 22:50, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

  • This has been discussed by a number of senior administrators, with the consensus being that if Ed Poor agreed, he should be unblocked.
  • Ed Poor did agree.
  • Therefore I unblocked him.
Your reasoning that he is a sock is inconclusive at best and, more realistically, without any real foundation.
  • DirkB made those posts on Ed Poor's talk page [5].
  • Ed Poor removed those posts[6].
  • Eyeizagoat reverted Ed Poor's deletion[7]. This does not mean that Eyeisagoat is DirkB. Whether it was Eyeisagoat's intention or not, it appears that you have allowed an enemy to cause you to think that an apparently-good editor (DirkB) is an enemy. Now none of this is proof that DirkB is not an enemy, or AmesG, or etc., but it does mean that there is no valid basis for concluding that.
Philip J. Rayment 23:02, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
Do you have checkuser? HenryS 23:20, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
Yes. Philip J. Rayment 23:30, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
If you are asking if Eyeizagoat and DirkB have the same IP, the answer is no. They are not even the same hemisphere. Philip J. Rayment 23:35, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
Okay. Perhaps it was just a lame troll/vandal who was observing the situation on Ed's talk. HenryS 00:11, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
I'd say so. Philip J. Rayment 02:49, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
So would I. Thanks to Philip and all those who made it possible for me to return before the year 2013. ;) --DirkB 14:12, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

New member

Philip, I am a new user and am greatly impressed by your knowledge involving the great spiritual journey that all great men take. How can I contact you? --american78

You just did! Alternatively, see the "E-mail this user" link on the left of the page? That works. Philip J. Rayment 22:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Stupid Question

You're the only sysop I see currently editing. I'm looking at the recent changes, and right after the article, I see a number in parentheses. Some are negative (colored red), and others are positive (colored green). I don't see any discernible pattern to the numbers. What exactly is this?

I just figured it out. It's a change in the size of the file. Sorry to bother! --Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 11:05, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

I have responded on my user page. Bugler 14:33, 10 September 2008 (EDT)