User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Archive 6

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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

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

Conflict of interest in your block of Barikada

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

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

Hey cobber

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

Thanks for the cooperation and fairness, but...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advice on catching vandals


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

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

Zugzwang 11:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

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


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

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

Featured articles

You have a reply.

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

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

I just sent you an important email

Dear PJR,

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

I'm annoying, I know

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

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


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

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


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

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

The new article

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

It wasn't Philip who blocked you Terry - it was ME. And the main thing you were blocked for was being a bully. Which is a blocking offence. And which you are continuing to do, in breach of your parole. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 15:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)


Please assume good faith. I accept most of the responsibility for this mess, because I just deleted the page without noting that the conditions were still in effect. If I had done so we wouldn't be here right now. Geoff PlourdeComplain! 01:20, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

In Fox' defence, Geoff, TK should be assuming good faith with me. Even after I explained why I had edited his page, and after agreeing with him that there was no point in the notice being on his page and removing it, for which he should have been politely thanking me, he was still being rude to me. Philip J. Rayment 01:58, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Philip, Philip, Philip. You spelled "defense" wrong. I won't block you for it this time, but I can't promise anything next time... :) Bohdan 02:07, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
In my defence of spelling it defence, I'll use the defence that that's the way that my spelling-checker said that it should be spelt. As does the (different) spelling checker that I'm using on this message. Of course that might have something to do with the first spelling checker being one that uses Aussie English, and the second being one that uses English English, you know, from the place that English comes from! So I think that you are the one on the wrong side of d' fence!  :-) Philip J. Rayment 05:56, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
OK then, can we all just get along? Geoff PlourdeComplain! 03:12, 2 April 2008 (EDT)


I saw other categories in that format which were created earlier so I decided to keep that format

for example, Category:Welsh Towns and Cities, Category:United States Towns and Cities, Category:United Kingdom Towns and Cities, Category:Scottish Towns and Cities were created a year ago have that format -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Good morning

 :} --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 02:07, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Good evening! Philip J. Rayment 03:58, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Discussion on Deborah's talk page

Good morning Philip. I just wanted to back up something that Aziraphale said, but thought I'd move here as it's less public I suspect. Azi said that one never knows what response to expect from the Sysops because one doesn't know which one will react first.

The quandary I had just an hour or so ago was: what should one do when one sees a glaring spelling error in a talk comment from a Sysop? In this case Andy had made the not-uncommon wiki-error of calling a website a cite. I had three options

i) point it out so that he could change it (and presumably delete my comment at the same time)
ii) change it myself - ie edit his talk comment
iii) leave it

I considered all three carefully. iii) I felt was out of the question - it left him open to ridicule. ii) on balance I didn't like either: there seemed something not right about changing someone else's talk comment.

So I plumped for i). I could have used sarcasm, ridiculued the error, etc. I did not. I simply pointed out the mistake as succinctly as possible. Within a short space of time, a different Sysop had reverted my change, left the error intact, and posted to my talk page inviting me to leave CP. I don't think that was even remotely deserved.

I don't really know what I expect you do say in response to this, I don't think there's much you can do about it (but maybe I'm wrong on that). I guess I just wanted to get it off my chest to someone who I believe behaves in a respectful and respected manner in all his dealings on CP.

Have a peaceful Sunday Philip. -- Ferret Nice old chat 18:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

My first choice would normally have been iii), with i) as second choice. Philip J. Rayment 20:08, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
What's wrong with choice ii)? It's not like he would be changing the meaning. I would appreciate someone correcting my typos (without using insulting edit summaries of course). Bohdan 22:25, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
Quite right, B. ;) --Devotchka 22:38, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm not saying that there's really anything wrong with it, and I didn't tell Ferret that he shouldn't have done what he did, but I think the question is, where do you stop? Some errors are glaring, but others are subtle. Are you going to correct someone's incorrect grammar and punctuation also? What if their sentence is so garbled that you can't be sure just what they are trying to say? What if you think yo know what they are saying, but you get it wrong and "correct" it to say something different to what they meant? I've even seen the odd case where someone has deliberately made a mistake to make a point or as some sort of joke (possibly an in-joke), only to have someone come along and correct their "mistake". There's also a principle involved that this is their post, not yours. Having said all that, however, I'll add that if you do correct someone's post, noting that you have done so (as Ferret did) is a good idea. Philip J. Rayment 00:04, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

I remember when the "Castle" policy was first proclaimed by Andy. It was held that a user's talk and user page were inviolate from being edited by anyone. Unless they were attacking/denigrating CP or another user, including sysops. Perhaps the best decision anyone can make is to just refrain from editing anything on such pages, unless it falls under the attack/denigrate/insult area. If someone has made a potentially embarrassing post, spelling / grammatical, it isn't hard to post to their talk page, or email them privately, right? Just my opinion, and of course I could be wrong......--₮K/Talk 00:41, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

I sort of agree, but pedantically don't agree! Specifically, what does it mean to say that "a user's talk ... page [is] inviolate from being edited by anyone", when it's very purpose is for others to post messages there? But to the extent that you're talking about editing their posts, then yes, I think that's a good point. Philip J. Rayment 01:16, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

So, agreement on something!  :D What Andy posted was that neither Sysop's or editors change (pedantically speaking I would say that means neither add to, or subtract from what another has written) anything on either the User or Talk page, unless the other circumstances (noted above) exist. Anyway, better safer than sorry, so perhaps that is what advice to new and old editors alike should be given: Just don't. --₮K/Talk 07:34, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Happened to notice this discussion, so I thought I should point out that this isn't true at all. Sysops have frequently taken the liberty of removing comments they don't like, feel are rude, or a variety of other things off of other people's talkpages. If this is the policy, no one seems required to follow it but the users.--TomMoore 01:05, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Would you care to prove that? Or do I detect an ad-hominem attack here? Would you have the stones to tell us which RW user you are? --₮K/Talk 01:10, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
It took me thirty seconds to check the history on this very page to find you flouting this principle, deeming something offensive at whim and removing it. [1]--TomMoore 14:35, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Ah, yes, but you were accusing sysops of doing it, and the example you showed was of TK doing it, and TK is no longer a sysop!  :-) Philip J. Rayment 22:26, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
"You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Fezzik the Giant.
(And for bonus points, you just demonstrated what a REAL ad hominem attack looks like. :)
--Gulik5 01:18, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
The "user's castle" policy is not absolute; offensive material can be removed, and although I don't know of any specific rule, I would expect that everyone would expect that vandalism is removed. Also, I think the "user's castle" policy is really about stuff the user puts on his pages, rather than stuff posted on his talk page by others (and that would cover the vandalism issue). And Gulik5 is right: TomMoore's post was not an ad hominem argument, but asking the user's identity is, because it's addressing the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. Philip J. Rayment 04:33, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Indeed.--TomMoore 14:35, 8 April 2008 (EDT)


Just wondering if you would support a change to the article to reflect what we both seem to feel is a distinction between the modern movement and the previous historical situation, since Andy seems to be done with repeating himself on the talk page there and maybe it can be improved now. Lemme know :)--TomMoore 01:03, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I saw the discussion and will comment there if and when I find time (and if I don't forget). Philip J. Rayment 04:34, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

quotes / links to references

I don't see them in: English coronation oath. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 11:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

The references are in the Bibliography section. Legally, I wouldn't think that the first two are at all a problem, because they didn't have copyright law in 973 nor 1689, and copyright would have expired anyway. I don't know if even the 1952 version is copyright (being an act of parliament), but it's source is shown in any case. Or do you think I need a reference right on the quote? Philip J. Rayment 11:53, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
A Bibliography is NOT a legal reference. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 11:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps. I'll improve it tomorrow (if I don't forget). Philip J. Rayment 12:03, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Question about Template Maintenance

Philip, I was reading through the help guides regarding templates but wasn't sure about how to submit proposed changes for existing templates. Specifically, I was interested in adding items to the State template so I could do some maintenance on the various state entries. Examples of items I'd like to add are: Area, Population, a Link to the Official State Website, Demographics (Median Income,Median Age, Median Home Price), etc. Thanks. --DinsdaleP 21:09, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

You can either put a request on the talk page of the template concerned (and hope that a sysop has it on his watchlist) or ask a sysop to unlock the template for you (better, particularly for non-trivial changes, as long as the sysop concerned trusts you). Philip J. Rayment 22:17, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
Sounds good. I'll construct the revised template and send it to the owning sysop so he can review it and apply it in one shot if it qualifies. I have a feeling that based on my Talk comments I'm not going to be trusted just yet ;-) --DinsdaleP 22:42, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

God created the universe, living things and human beings

Philip, you made a very good point at talk:Expelled:

How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?

The fact that everything in our lives goes so well indicates the parental heart of God. My kids can draw pictures for mommy to put on the refrigerator (with a strawberry magnet), because we provided them all the materials, the encouragement, etc. They did not create themselves.

Creationism's strongest argument is that the planet Earth is so hospitable to human life!

Where ID and YEC intersect is in their common disavowal of the idea that things "just happened". That natural forces and principles are sufficient to explain the "appearance of design" in living things, just doesn't make sense. When you see stones placed in a certain pattern, you don't think erosion made it that way; even if no one remembers how Stonehenge was built, we assume it was the work of an intelligent being. Not even the smartest monkey or ape ever made an artifact like that.

What I'm leading up to is this: let's collaborate on a Design or Design detection article. --Ed Poor Talk 10:57, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure that I'd agree that Earth being so hospitable for life is creationism's strongest argument, but it is a good one. And I like the Stonehenge example. I've often used stone tools as an example, but Stonehenge is perhaps a better one, being something more specific and well-known.
As for the design article, you start it, and I'll fix it!  :-). Sorry, I'll try that again: you start it, and I'll add my two-cents' worth. :-) Philip J. Rayment 11:18, 17 April 2008 (EDT)


Hi Philip. I saw your (now removed) comment on Andrew's talk page that "Fox was not forced to leave by the administration... Philip J. Rayment 08:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)" For the record, heh, well, I think it's more accurate to say that I was constructively dismissed :) 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 13:35, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Dr Nelson

Greetings Philip. Something I spotted which might stir your interest - Brendan Nelson has a Facebook page on which he states his belief in Intelligent Design in his profile. Don't get many politicians that bold in Aus. -- Ferret Nice old chat 06:25, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

There was another(?) Liberal MP a few years ago who came out in support of ID, which created a bit of controversy. Or was that Brendan Nelson then? I can't recall. Who was the education minister in the Howard Government? Philip J. Rayment 09:06, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
Ah yes - Nelson was Education Minsiter for several years before he went to Defence. So it probably was him, I'd forgotten about that. -- Ferret Nice old chat 09:14, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
Hello all. From memory, Nelson thought that if parents wanted their kids to learn about ID, he didn't have a problem with it. I don't think he supported it being an alternative to the teaching of evolution though.KingOfNothing 23:33, 21 May 2008 (EDT)


I notice that you are active at the moment, and since you are a sysop this question is particularly important. Do you think Conservapedia should be able to handle articles which criticize its methods, similar to the way Wikipedia allows such articles? ErskineChilders 10:57, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm only here briefly before heading off to bed. I don't think there's a simple answer, as a lot has to do with the motive for having such an article. Philip J. Rayment 11:00, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
May I suggest you look at our Debate Topics? There are over a dozen pages of --Ed Poor Talk 17:23, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Yo tengo dos pregunta!

Hello, Philip. It is Rocky. I have a question to ask you. I just want to be sure that in the last email that I sent you, I did not offend you. I noticed that you have not sent me an email in a while, and I just want to make sure that I did not upset you. If I did, I would like to know what I said, and try to account for my writing.

I have another question. I noticed that some pages, there are no edit buttons. I would like to know how I could put those on my page. That would be awesome. Yeah. Awesome.

Thank you.
-- User:Rocky

No offence. I've had a very busy weekend and I'm still catching up. I don't understand the edit button question. Do you mean the "+" tab at the top of talk pages? Philip J. Rayment 17:06, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Alright, that's good because I thought that I had offended you.

With the edit button question, if you go onto certain pages, such as the help page, there are no edit buttons on it. I was wondering how to put those on my page. Actually, in the time that it has been since I left the last thing on this talk page, I tried to put some quote boxes on my page. Now, everything on it has shifted to very small print on the right side. So, now, I have another question (sorry to keep bugging you with questions). How do I get the text to move back to being in the middle, instead of shifted to the right?


The help page is locked; therefore you can only view the source, not edit, so there are no edit buttons there. Are you asking how to put no buttons on your user page? The only way is probably to have an administrator lock it, which means that you couldn't edit it!
The <div style="float:right; width:40%"><small> code on your user page is the cause of the small text shifted to the right. Delete that and that problem should be fixed. You should also take out the line {{Userbox |side-box colour |main box colour |side-box content |main box content}} line (second from top), as I don't think you actually want that there.
Philip J. Rayment 22:28, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

I do not think that I want my page locked if I could not edit it. Thank you, by the way for answering my questions, not only the one about the edit boxes, but also, the one about the text on my page. It looks really good, now. Also, my user boxes are looking better, so thanks for telling me to get rid of the line {{Userbox |side-box colour |main box colour |side-box content |main box content}}. You should come check it out. --Rocky

PS. There is a new "Question of the Week" up, if you would like to answer. You know, we really should, like start advertising it. That would be a little aquard, you know, to go up to Google and just find an ad for it staring you back in the face, with it's (presumably) blinking eyes, but you catch my drift. Thanks, again.

Categories that need to be deleted

Category:Aquatic Mammals Category:Dangerous animals Category:Extinct animals Category:Kosher animals -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Private messages

Hi Philip...Is there a way on Conservapedia for private messages? Thanks!BertSchlossberg 12:29, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Only by using the 'E-mail this user' link in the left column. Philip J. Rayment 18:51, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I have tried to send using "E-mail this user" but it doesn't work. I have valid e-mail address and am logged in. Anything on your end?BertSchlossberg 06:38, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I've had many e-mails from people using that (usually complaining about blocks!), so I know it works. I just tried the link to send you one, and it said "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.". Does your Preferences page say "Your e-mail address was authenticated on


As you seem to be the expert on this sort of thing, I posted a question on the YEC and Noah pages. AdenJ 02:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Answered (by link) on those pages. Philip J. Rayment 02:24, 28 April 2008 (EDT)


Can I have night editing rights??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dzonibl17 (talk)

No. :-)
I can't grant night-editing rights, and you wouldn't be given them until you've shown yourself to be a trustworthy editor. I'll put a welcome box on your talk page which has some links that you should read.
Philip J. Rayment 06:31, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
OK, thanks! Er... could you delete the user accounts I created under variations of this name, then? I was messing around and I don't really plan on using any of the others. Got a bit carried away m'afraid... Thanx for the welcome template, alsoDzonibl17 07:38, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
I can't delete them, but I've blocked them. Perhaps Aschlafly might delete them. Philip J. Rayment 08:28, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Thanks very much!Dzonibl17 08:45, 29 April 2008 (EDT)


Why the revert with no discussion? I was trying to delicately describe a key Christian tenet accurately. If you have suggestions on better descriptions, by all means let's discuss - but please don't just delete a valid edit! PhilScheur 10:52, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

I explained (albeit briefly) in the edit comment, and I don't believe that I did delete a valid edit, because I don't believe that it was valid! To enlarge, only(?) Catholics "worship" Mary and saints (although I'm not sure that they would agree with that description anyway. And it read as though there is no basis for the three being one in the Bible, but there is such basis, and it read as though Christians believe something contrary to the Bible, which is incorrect. And there didn't really appear to be anything in the edit worth saving. Philip J. Rayment 10:58, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Young Earth Creationism Revert

I've responded to your revert at Talk:Young Earth Creationism. Since I have provided the explanation you requested, and if there are no further objections, I will be reinstating my additions shortly. --MichaelK 16:46, 29 April 2008 (EDT)


You're such a pig!! JK, JK! :P ~BCSTalk2ME 09:53, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

I assume you're referring to my greed? Would you like some? I can be quite genererous—with other people's stuff!  :-) Philip J. Rayment 10:15, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
No, I don't want some! I was just joking you!! ~BCSTalk2ME 10:27, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
Good! All the more for meeeee! :-) Philip J. Rayment 11:16, 30 April 2008 (EDT)


Mr Rayment, as you are listed as a sysop here and apear to be logged in currently, I wonder if you could address my query that Mr Poor keeps deleting and hiding? RobbieFowler 12:01, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

It's well past my bed-time, and I'm going off now. I have, incidentally, already given my thoughts on this to Ed Poor via e-mail. I will see what has developed when I'm next back here in about ten hours. Philip J. Rayment 12:05, 30 April 2008 (EDT)


I write an article listed on the wanted page, and add some alternative uses for the term 'wife' (fishwife, alewife). One sysop, Ed Poor, tells me that these are irrelevant and asks for some words on the role of a wife. These I add, as best I can, in terms that no conservative could - I hope - dispute. This is then subject to sarcastic comment by DinsdaleP, and is reverted by another sysop - you - on the grounds that my definition of a wife's riole was , iirc. 'unsourced'. But surely this, as in so many other cases, is a subjective judgement. And for a Conservative encyclopaedia I would argue that my take is more appropriate than, say, that of the late Andrea Dworkin. I feel caught between a rock and a hard place. Bugler 10:49, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

No, that is was unsourced (i.e. no supporting references) is not subjective, but simple fact. Your perspective may indeed be more appropriate than Dworkin's, but that in itself doesn't mean that it's right. Philip J. Rayment 09:47, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

TO: PJR, atheism article being article of the month

PJR, I would like to discuss the atheism being the article of the month via private email. There are a lot of things that are going on in regards to the article that I want you to know about and some of them are big things I believe. In the meantime, I will switch it back but I am certainly open to discussion. If after the Sysops discuss this matter and the atheism article and there is no agreement to keep it the article of the month then I will certainly defer to the Sysop group. I would like Andy to be in on it to. I think we need a sysop discussion place to facilitate this matter. In the meantime due to urgency I am going to switch it back. Conservative 18:03, 2 May 2008 (EDT)


I am interested in that program but I do not understand how to install it-- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

The page I pointed you to had instructions: what about those instructions are not clear? Philip J. Rayment 09:44, 3 May 2008 (EDT)


I put a new response to your objections to my edit on the YEC article a while ago. --MichaelK 12:25, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I did see it, and have been slow to respond, but have e-mailed someone for explanation of the point about some zircons being undatable. I'm still waiting for a reply. Philip J. Rayment 22:32, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ben Stein

I've put the info for how to watch the video on the article's Talk Page. --DinsdaleP 21:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. I've replied there. Philip J. Rayment 22:33, 5 May 2008 (EDT)


Hi Philip, just wondering whether you'd be able to help us out on The Golden Compass. Learntogether and I are in a deadlock over a reversion of edits that I made[[2]], and neither of us want to end up in an edit war. Any chance you could take a look and offer some advice? Underscoreb 20:17, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Done. Philip J. Rayment 22:45, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, Philip. I hate to come crying to you, but Learntogether is still stonewalling me on The Golden Compass. I've tried compromising, rephrasing, sourcing and all that, but he's still insisting on reverting my edits. I don't know if Conservapedia has arbitration committees or what have you, but what would you recommend I do? Underscoreb 17:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I would recommend that you not try to play one Sysop against another as that is a bannable offense. I am guessing you have a knowledge of Pullman comparable to my own, so don't try to do another 'end around' and bring in others who may not be as versed in that area. We are both aware of why he wrote the books and what he wanted to accomplish; he was vocally proud of it until the last few years when he was going to make a kids movie and started to be quiet so as not to offend. Learn together 17:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
That's not my intention at all, Learntogether. I thought part of an admin's role was to help resolve disputes. As for Pullman's aims, you'll find a new entry on your talk page where I've added some context from his "Republic of Heaven" speech. I hope we can settle this amicably. Underscoreb 18:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
A person (such as me) who doesn't have (much) knowledge of the subject is often better, because they don't have their own biases and can look at an issue more objectively. Also, Underscoreb would have had no way of knowing what my answer would have been—that is, in principle I could just as easily have sided with you rather than him—so there's really not much basis for saying that he was playing me off against you. Also, the Bible tells us to seek wise counsel, so asking for another opinion is the right thing to do. Philip J. Rayment 20:05, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Underscoreb knew that he would have a hard sell convincing anyone with knowledge of Pullman that what he was trying to insert was valid. Your comments, without knowledge of Pullman's views, would allow him to try to reinsert that information. I am also not a big fan of theatrics. Notice above when he came back to you again that he tried "sourcing and all that". How about this. If he sourced his information then I'll let what he put stand otherwise I'll ban him for 5 years for lying and trying to stir up trouble. Agreed? Perhaps it is best to just leave this alone. Learn together 11:31, 8 May 2008 (EDT)


I moved information put into the main section down to the evolutionary view where it belongs. In looking at the extra information entered, it appears to be something that you may wish to review. Learn together 20:53, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

I've done some changes to it, and will be returning to do more. Thanks. Philip J. Rayment 12:38, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Darwin and Hitler

There has been a lot of dishonest argument about the Darwin-Hitler connection in an attempt to dissuade people from watching Expelled. The reasoning goes like this:

  1. If a movie makes a false statement about one major thing, everything else it says should be disregarded.
  2. When Expelled says that there is a connection between the ideas of Darwin and Hitler it makes a major false statement.
  3. Therefore, Expelled should be disregarded.

Even conceding the first premise, I would have to submit that the second premise is clearly false. All our so-called "contributors" who are advancing this false premise are likely doing so only to stop people from watching Expelled.

People should watch Expelled to find out how Academia censors ideas which go against the mainstream - even though academic freedom is generally considered an important value in universities as well as in science. --Ed Poor Talk 12:17, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Yep, I agree with that. I only wish I could watch the film, but it has not been released here yet, and it wouldn't surprise me if it never will be, at the cinemas at least. It might come out on DVD if I'm fortunate.
The Darwin-Hitler connection is well established (although I think one has to be careful about precisely what that connection is; I'm sure that Darwin would not have approved of Hitler's actions), but the arguments against it seem to be one or more of the following:
  • How dare you suggest that! (Argument by outrage).
  • Evolution is a scientific observation, not a moral lesson (yet the same people that try to distance the actions of followers of evolution blame religion for the actions of its followers).
  • Darwin did not promote the sorts of things that Hitler did (a straw-man argument).
Philip J. Rayment 12:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Parameter name (Brad Stine talk page)

Thanks. I couldn't figure out how to add that and the page for the tag didn't explain it. Jinxmchue 10:37, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

I've replied at Template talk:Copied from. Philip J. Rayment 10:45, 12 May 2008 (EDT)


Thankyou very much Philip, God bless. --Reallife 23:00, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh please, feel free to call me Reallife, its a name i hope you all come to respect. Thankyou --Reallife 23:04, 13 May 2008 (EDT)


Thank you kindly for your help in clearing things up (regarding my block)! :) --JBrown 07:24, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Your education

Have you taken any classes or undertaken any study of chemistry or classical and modern physics? I'm not trying to make any point here, I would just like to know what things I will need to explain and what I should assume you already know in the argument we are currently having and ones we may have in the future. Just so you know, I have currently completed two semesters of undergraduate courses in calculus, two semesters of classical physics, one semester of theoretical modern physics, and a course in experimental modern physics. --MichaelK 21:09, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

I've done nothing like that, beyond standard science classes in high school (years 7-10) (and I did get 23 out of 20 on a test once!). I have studied the creation/evolution issue for over 30 years, and in the process picked up a lot of the science along the way, but that's probably not a lot of help to you knowing just what I know and what I don't know. Philip J. Rayment 22:40, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Featured article

I think they could coexist, an "Article of the year" and a "Featured article of the week." If the other members of the team agree you could restart it, only a little lower. OK? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:01, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Replied by e-mail. Philip J. Rayment 11:03, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
Four members of the team say YES. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 12:47, 20 May 2008 (EDT)--

quick note to PJR regarding bring Aussie flavor to an article

Dear PJR,

My homoexuality article cites experts from around the world. My current atheism article while being quite known on the internet in some circles and having a google rank of 6-10 depending on which moment in time, is currently pretty US and Britain focused.

I may ask for some material from CMI to be created via reader suggestion request or dig through their website some more. With that in mind, do you know any notable opponents of atheism besides CMI people who reside in Australia? Conservative 13:34, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

I would ask the same question in regards to New Zealand, Ireland, and Scotland? I would like to get an opponent from India as well since they are English speaking but would not be surprised if you have no leads from India. In addition, I will take other experts as well from non-english speaking countries since Conservapedia has an audience in non-English speaking countries as well. Conservative 13:39, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Scotland is in Britain, more accurately the UK.
You might like to differentiate between countries where English is spoken widely as a mother tongue or secondary language and where English is simply an official language.
Of the former, Canada, South Africa and Singapore are obvious examples.
Of the latter, other countries like India, where English is official but comparatively few people speak it, would include Pakistan, Kenya and the Philippines.
Having said that, I'm not sure those countries will provide much of what you are seeking as few indulge in as much secular vs. religious debate as is prevalent in the US - either because atheism doesn't get much exposure (as in India) or because the principle of non-overlapping magisteria is taken for granted, i.e. secularism doesn't conflict with religious belief. Ajkgordon 06:22, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
Conservative, see Salt Shakers. And what you ask is a contradiction: You can have an "Aussie flavour", but not an "Aussie flavor"!
Ajkgordon, what we lack in quantity we make up for in quality! :-)
Philip J. Rayment 06:36, 24 May 2008 (EDT)


As the only sysop active at this hour, you may wish to consider what to do about new user Battyboy - his name is Caribbean slang for 'homosexual' and one might suspect that his presence here is not motivated by a wish to help improve CP. Bugler 05:48, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

With the greatest respect he has made one edit which you have reverted as vandalism, apparantly without considering whether or not it was made in good faith. A summary of the edit you reverted was:
  • paranoia can cause disputes between people - correct
  • paranoia is caused by drugs - correct
  • paranoia can develop because people suppress homosexual feelings - controversial but valid and sourced
  • paranoia can be treated by seeking medical and religious attention - the religious bit is the only suspicious portion of the edit, but it is echoed in other places of this site
  • mass paranoia is when large groups of people believe there is a conspiracy against them - correct
One of these points was controversial but sourced (expanding and rebutting it is a better option than deleting it), another was potentially a parodic effort, but this would best be removed in part rather than deleting the entire section.
The name is concerning, but we should give him a chance to explain himself. There may be a perfectly logical reason behind it. If he does turn out to be a vandal then that's that, but until that time we should not assume of his edits to be in bad faith. StatsMsn 06:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
I've blocked that account, inviting him to choose another name. I'm a bit suspicious of his edit, but let's give it a chance. Thanks both of you for your comments. Philip J. Rayment 06:41, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

the Voice of reason

While I am a dirty atheist I commend you on your straight talking, rational and adult behaviour in dealing with other points of view on this site. Pity some arent always the same. AdenJ 06:56, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Dirty? No. A fool (Psalm 14:1 ), yes, but not dirty! :-) But seriously, thanks for your comment. Philip J. Rayment 07:32, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Well thats not a very nice psalm to pull on someone you know Phillip. Just because you think I am wrong doesnt mean you are right. AdenJ 06:16, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Sorry you took offence. I was throwing it in as a joke. Philip J. Rayment 10:42, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Would you do me a favor?

Would you please do me a favor and lock my user and talk pages? I honestly don't remember if this has been done, although I know it's been requested. If I can screw up my self-discipline I won't be around to check it, and since it's a record of things Aschlafly said I wouldn't want any subtle twists added.

If that's inappropriate or you just don't want to, thanks anyway.

Take care, Aziraphale 15:59, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Philip. Catch you on the flip side. :) ~ John
This conversation seems to be all me. ;) In any case, it seems I was premature, would you please unlock my page? I promise I'll wait longer for dust to settle before asking again. Thanks Aziraphale 01:31, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
It was actually Joaquin who locked your pages, but I've unlocked them for you now. Philip J. Rayment 05:57, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
Ah,thanks. And thanks, Joaquin, since you seem to be watching. ;) I appreciate you jumping on my request, sorry that it was premature. Aziraphale 11:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, there's a twist ending for you. :P Be well, Philip. Aziraphale 00:38, 24 May 2008 (EDT)