See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.

User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Archive 2

From A Storehouse of Knowledge
Jump to: navigation, search

Previous archive

Next archive

Talk page archive
This is an archive of talk-page discussions. Do not add any discussion to this page.

If you wish to reply to comments here, start a new discussion on the current talk page.

If you believe that a discussion was archived prematurely, move it from the archive back to the talk page.


Opinion, please?

Phil, I just got done reading the Refuting Evolution series from Johnathan Sarfati. I was curious as to whether you have read the series and what you thought of it. Also, do you have a recommended reading list of other books/periodicals on the same topic? --Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 16:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that you read just these, or have you read these also? What did you think of it/them?
I have read both, although some time ago now. I thoroughly recommend them.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the same topic, but would recommend these also:
  • Refuting Compromise. This is different in that it's not talking so much about the evolutionary claims as about compromise positions that various Christians have. It's not available online like the others, but you can get a taste of it here.
  • The Creation Answers Book. Again, not like Refuting and Refuting 2, in that it's not directly looking at evolutionary claims. Rather, it's providing answers to questions people often ask about creation, the flood, Genesis, etc. This one is available online here.
  • One Blood: The biblical answer to racism. This is a bit different again, but I mention it mainly because it's online.
  • Creation. You can't go past this magazine, and most of the back issues more than a year old are online.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 06:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I have read both of them! Other than CP and CreationWiki, it was really my first time diving into the topic of YEC. I feel that he does make some substantial points, though I also feel that he shoots himself in the foot at times (don't have any specific citations at the moment). For example, I feel that the explanation of the uses of venom/toxins before the fall in Refuting Evolution 2 was rather weak, in that it (a.) has some "substantial uses" in small doses, and (b.) the Christian God foresaw the Fall and implanted (designed?) the information for such structures to be implemented post-Fall. I like that it tries to turn away readers from the commonly-misheld idea that Creationists don't believe in any biological/genetic change over time; he spends a lot of time stating that speciation and diversification are necessary tools, but what YEC does not uphold is the gaining of information from those changes.
Turns out that my late grandfather was a YEC "fanatic" and has an entire bookshelf dedicated to YEC literature! I picked up Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, as well as The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris. They seem to be a bit more advanced, but they also seem to be older publications. If anything, they make for a very interesting read, even though I'm skeptical of the message they're trying to convey. Always good to take a closer look at opposing viewpoints, I suppose! Thanks for the time.
Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 16:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've never read Of Pandas and People, but I guess that it would be getting old by now, although not as old as The Genesis Flood. Dean Kenyon is a scientist who was well known, having co-authored one of the classic textbooks on evolution, before becoming a creationist on the strength of the scientific arguments.
'The Genesis Flood would, I guess, be heavy reading. It was my first creationist book, which I read when I was in my mid to late teens. It is the book that got the modern creationist movement started (your grandfather's copy wouldn't be a first edition, would it?) back in the early 1960s. Some of the ideas in it are somewhat dated now though, such as the idea of a vapour canopy, which is no longer widely held, so it's perhaps more of historical interest than anything else.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 23:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, some still argue for the existence of a vapor (spelled the right way :P)canopy, though also concede that it couldn't be solely responsible for the biblical flood. I'm having a lot of trouble getting through Of Pandas and People, though.
Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 23:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know that anybody ever claimed that the vapour (US: vapor) canopy was solely responsible for the flood.
Creationists (like evolutionists) cover a wide range of knowledge and expertise, from scientists who work for the major creationists organisations (CMI, ICR, AiG, etc.) to Christians who heard a talk by a creationist and who now think they know everything about the subject, but who don't keep up on the latest thinking. In between are some "lone wolf" creationists who run creationist organisations or museums but who do not submit themselves to the wise counsel of other creationists, and who hold some ideas since discarded by "mainstream" creationism or which were never held by mainstream creationism. So you have plenty of creationists towards the "heard a talk" end of the scale, and even some "lone wolf" creationists who still promote the vapour canopy theory, and perhaps even some of the older creationists who find it hard to change long-held views (I believe I heard that the late Henry Morris never gave up the vapour canopy idea), but "mainstream" creationism has long dropped the idea. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 00:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Moar Guard Dog

It's got rabies and is shredding all of the users. Nx suspects that it is incompatibility between versions of MediaWiki. Phantom Hoover 16:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a change in the HTML format of the recent changes page. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Chess Pages

Phil- I previously pestered you for rights to add pictures to my chess pages. I would like to apologize. I found a better way to add the images, without upload. You simply create a table, with chess pieces as info.

For example

Sample Puzzle

This position looks hopeless for White- Black has a pawn that White cannot possibly stop from becoming a queen. Yet White can pull off a draw. Can you find out how?


See if you can solve it! The EmperorRise, my apprentice 00:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(I've removed unneeded blank lines from your post.)
Sorry, but you must be using a character set which my computer doesn't have; all I'm getting is black vertical bars where you have pieces.
Wikipedia, including non-English versions, have faced this problem before, and after much discussion and voting, they came up with a template to be used on all Wikipedias (English and other).
I suggest that you read up on what they've done, and see if it's practicable to use their solution here. I did notice a reference to SVG images (but that may not have been the final outcome), which we've not yet got the availability to use here, but hopefully we will have before too long.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
In passing, the table & characters look OK to me. User 11speak to me 08:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Below is what I see - hope this helps! Taj 06:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


I can actually see the pieced (in the table) on the computer I'm on now. I've tried to figure out how White could draw, but without spending more time on than I'm willing to, I can't figure it out. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 06:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I had this problem on RW too- it is your browser. The infidels using IE cannot see the holy light chess pieces. It renders correctly on Google Chrome. The EmperorRise, my apprentice 15:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not (just) the browser. I think I was using Opera on the computer I couldn't see the characters on, and it works in IE 7 on this computer. (Actually, it may have been IE 6 on the other computer.) Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 16:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't see them on firefox, here or at RW. It definitely looks like a "missing" font, grabbing the font would be fine for two people who want to illustrate a game they are playing, but not OK for general 'cyclopedia usage. Images should be fine though, especially since "white" could be "red", clearly distinguishing the two players' pieces. ħuman Number 19 18:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Membership Nomination for Pi.

I nominated Π for membership but the user is not showing up in the candidates category. I think this is due to using the actual pi symbol, as it has given me trouble before.BradleyF (LowKey) 06:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if there's any connection but I've just got:

'A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "SMW::getSMWPageID". MySQL returned error "1267: Illegal mix of collations (latin1_bin,IMPLICIT) and (utf8_general_ci,COERCIBLE) for operation '=' (localhost)".'

When trying to edit Pi's talk page. (The edit worked though) User 11speak to me 08:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe that this error message does have something to do with it. It's not just a category problem; This page doesn't list Pi's page either. I've been trying to find the solution, and I've found a lot of stuff that's over my head, but nothing that I understand sufficiently yet. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you rename me either Pi or 3.14159? Π 04:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
That would be another way out of the problem, although I suspect that the problem's going to recur somewhere sometime. I don't think I've installed the extension for renaming accounts yet, but I fully intended to, so this will be a good time to do it. Which of those names would you prefer? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 05:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Pi is what most people call me. Π 05:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
You mean people don't go around calling you three point one four one five nine? I wonder why?
It turns out that I had installed the required extension, so this should only take a moment...
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 05:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Even as 3.14159 most people called me Pi. Pi 05:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. It seems that the same database query error caused the process to bomb before moving your talk page, but I've now moved that separately. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 05:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Weird. Maybe there was something wrong with the page rather than my name (although it probably didn't help matters). π 05:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
It is a bit weird, but I think it was the name. After telling you that I'd have it done in a moment, I started wondering if the character set/database query problem would actually prevent the renaming from working. And when I did the renaming operation, I got the error message, and had to look at Recent Changes to see if it had worked. The user page move had worked, and the rename itself had worked, but not the move of the user talk page. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 06:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a problem with Semantic MediaWiki. A little googling gave this. Nx 10:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
That's one of the pages I found, but exactly what I have to do to solve it I'm not clear on. I apparently have to change some character set settings in the database, but exactly which ones and what I need to change them to is not clear. I'm not actually sure how to change them either, but I could probably figure that out once I know what I have to change.
Would it help if I posted a picture of what the current database tables are set to?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I've installed SMW on my local MW and recreated the problem. I'll get back to you once I fix it. Nx 13:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


Ok, looks like mediawiki creates tables with binary charset and binary collation, but the database is created with the default server charset and collation, which is latin1 and latin1_swedish or in your case latin1_bin. SMW then uses this to create its tables, which is incorrect. Just to be sure, copypaste the output of these three commands Replace wikidb with your database name, and the prefix tw to your table prefix.

select table_schema, table_name, table_collation from information_schema.tables where table_schema='wikidb';

show create table wikidb.twsmw_ids;

select * from information_schema.schemata where schema_name='wikidb';

These just report what's there without making changes, correct? And I'm unclear on what I'm supposed to do with "tw".
While I'm waiting for those answers, I'll mention that most tables have the collation set to "binary", whilst some, mostly SMW ones, have it set to "latin1_swedish_ci".
See also here.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
These are just reports, yes. tw is the wiki table prefix ($wgDBPrefix), it's tw because I call my home wiki testwiki. I don't know what those scripts you linked to do, but I suspect those are for problems related to upgrading/migrating (like the bugreport I linked to), so I doubt they'll fix anything. Nx 14:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not having much luck. I'm trying to run the first command from within a "Run SQL query" box within phpMyAdmin. Is that right? phpMyAdmin shows two databases, one with the last part of the name being "_media", with 49 tables, and the other having the last part of the name "_schema", and which has 17 tables. The error message is "#1146 - Table '<db name>.tables' doesn't exist". Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to add the database name for the first command, fixed now. The first database (with 49 tables) is the wiki database ($wgDBname in LocalSettings.php), right? That's wikidb in my case (the default). Nx 15:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully these are what you need:

table_schema 	table_name 	table_collation 
<dbname> 	archive	binary
<dbname> 	category	binary
<dbname> 	categorylinks	binary
<dbname> 	externallinks	binary
<dbname> 	filearchive	binary
<dbname> 	hitcounter	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	image	binary
<dbname> 	imagelinks	binary
<dbname> 	interwiki	binary
<dbname> 	ipblocks	binary
<dbname> 	job	binary
<dbname> 	langlinks	binary
<dbname> 	logging	binary
<dbname> 	math	binary
<dbname> 	objectcache	binary
<dbname> 	oldimage	binary
<dbname> 	page	binary
<dbname> 	page_props	binary
<dbname> 	page_restrictions	binary
<dbname> 	pagelinks	binary
<dbname> 	protected_titles	binary
<dbname> 	querycache	binary
<dbname> 	querycache_info	binary
<dbname> 	querycachetwo	binary
<dbname> 	recentchanges	binary
<dbname> 	redirect	binary
<dbname> 	revision	binary
<dbname> 	searchindex	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	site_stats	binary
<dbname> 	smw_atts2	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	smw_conc2	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	smw_conccache	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	smw_ids	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	smw_inst2	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	smw_redi2	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	smw_rels2	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	smw_spec2	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	smw_subs2	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	smw_text2	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	spoofuser	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	templatelinks	binary
<dbname> 	text	binary
<dbname> 	trackbacks	binary
<dbname> 	transcache	binary
<dbname> 	updatelog	binary
<dbname> 	user	binary
<dbname> 	user_groups	binary
<dbname> 	user_newtalk	binary
<dbname> 	watchlist	binary
Table 	Create Table 
smw_ids	CREATE TABLE `smw_ids` (
        `smw_id` int(8) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
        `smw_namespace` int(11) NOT NULL,
        `smw_title` varchar(255) character set latin1 collate latin1_bin NOT NULL,
        `smw_iw` varchar(32) character set latin1 collate latin1_bin default NULL,
        `smw_sortkey` varchar(255) character set latin1 collate latin1_bin NOT NULL,
        PRIMARY KEY  (`smw_id`),
        KEY `smw_title` (`smw_title`,`smw_namespace`,`smw_iw`),
        KEY `smw_sortkey` (`smw_sortkey`)
NULL	        <dbname> 	latin1	                         latin1_swedish_ci	NULL

It's late, and I should be hitting the sack. Will this take much longer, or should we continue next opportunity we get? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't take too much longer. as you can see the database default charset and collation is latin1 and latin1_swedish_ci. Mediawiki tables are created as binary despite this, but SMW uses the database default. To fix this:


This will set the database default character set to binary and the collation to binary. After this, you'll have to delete the smw tables and recreate them. I think "SMW_refreshData -vfp" in the smw directory's maintenance subdir does that, if not, do it manually (The update command in Special:SMWAdmin is not enough, you have to delete them first, then recreate with the initialise command). Once that's done, check that they're all binary with the first command (select table_schema, table_name, table_collation from information_schema.tables where table_schema='wikidb';) Nx 15:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I've run that Alter database command, and it said that it executed successfully.
How do I run the maintenance script? I'm using PuTTY, and have used cd to get to the folder with the php script, and typed in "SMW_refreshData -vfp", but it says "resource temporarily unavailable".
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
try "php SMW_refreshData -vfp" Nx 16:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Same result. :-( Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 16:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Then you'll have to drop the tables manually:

use wikidb;

drop table smw_atts2 , smw_conc2 , smw_conccache , smw_ids , smw_inst2 , smw_redi2 , smw_rels2 , smw_spec2 , smw_subs2 , smw_text2;

After this run initialise in SMWAdmin Nx 16:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how phpMyAdmin works, so just delete these tables any way you can if this doesn't work. Nx 16:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I followed your steps, and they both said that they worked, and the tables have been changed. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 16:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
However, SMW is not working. Should I run the "Data repair and upgrade" in Admin functions for Semantic MediaWiki again? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 16:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Did you run initialise? If you did, data repair should repopulate the tables. Nx 16:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I clicked the "Initialise or upgrade tables" button, and looking in phpMyAdmin the tables were recreated. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 16:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, actually, perhaps I overstated it saying that SMW was not working. Looking at Noah's ark, the "Browse Properties" link is in the toolbox, and works. But the measurement properties in the article are not putting up boxes when hovering the mouse, like they should, and the table in Help:Semantic MediaWiki is missing. Editing or refreshing the pages doesn't help. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 16:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
What about the "Data repair and upgrade", did you try that? Nx 16:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
That's what I was asking if I should do! Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 16:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I should've been more clear. Nx 16:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm running it now, but that's the one that takes a while. Might be time (2:38 a.m.!) to go to bed, I think! Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 16:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that should fix it by the time you wake up. Good night! Nx 16:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep, it's all working again now. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 23:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


We aren't one. --Acionyx 18:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

to: PJR, the main page and visual appeal

PJR, on the left margin of the main page there is room underneath the navigation box and toolbox for some Christian artwork. Perhaps, some stain glass artwork or famous Christian artwork would brighten up the main page. Also, there is some room for some Christian artwork on the lowest part of the left half of the main page right below the "Learn more about A Storehouse of Knowledge!" I think your main page could be a little more "artsy" and less plain Jane. I do think the church picture livens things up plus the temporary logo though. You are not quite there yet as far as the visual appeal of the main page in my estimation at least. Ruylopez 09:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Less is often more, Ken. Leaving white (or negative) space is a common page layout technique to avoid over-crowding and distracting the eye. Too much clutter can make the page appear busy and difficult to read, a common fault on the web. It could do with a couple of small illustrations but filling blank space just because it's blank is usually a mistake. Ajkgordon 10:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
On my browser, there is no room below the "learn more" section, except when I zoom into the page (which enlarges the picture and the right hand column narrows as a result, making it longer). Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

On my browser, Firefox 3, I can say the following:

  • 1600x1200 - Fills the screen almost exactly. There is a little bit of room in the right side green box.
  • 1680x1050 - Extends a bit beyond the bottom of the screen. Still a little room in the right side green box.
  • 1280x1024 - The "Learn more" and "Knowledge verse" are beyond the bottom of the screen. No room anywhere.
  • 1024x768 - Now the picture of the church is beyond the bottom of the screen. There is now some room in the left side box
  • 800x600 - The right side green box is all squashed up. There is a lot of room at the bottom of the left side box.

HermanH 11:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Popups and api

I've modified the popups script to work with this site (the article path is hardcoded to /wiki for wikipedia), but it's failing for some functions because the api is not available. I haven't tested anything beyond the simplest functions though. Nx 13:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I gather that you've modified the per-user version, rather than the gadgets version? I tried to see if there were WP-specific paths in that (as I had to when I installed popups on CP), but couldn't find any that I thought needed changing. I don't know how different the gadget version is (it's certainly based on the same code), but presumably the same changes you made could be made to the gadgets version.
Hang on, I'll copy your code to the gadgets page and do a comparison... Oh, there's actually lots of differences.
The gadgets version works (well, you get a popup window; I haven't tried all the options on that), but only on selections in the edit box. I've tried to track down the problem, but with no success so far.
As for the API, that's what another user was asking about before, and I wasn't able to figure out how to make that accessible.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I used the current gadget file from WP, only changed that one line (return '' instead of return 'wiki'). As for the api, see here. Nx 14:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I reckon that's where I got it from, so it's changed a bit in the last few weeks! Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Math markup

It seems that this page is the place where all the wiki experts, gurus, and wizards hang out. So here's the request. Can someone please add the math markup support?? I realize that this is a major undertaking, and requires lots and lots of work. And I'm very far from being an expert in this. It will be immensely beneficial to aSK to have these extensions installed. SamHB 15:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

See ask talk:Software changes. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


I know this to be a touchy article but I would like to expand on it. I have a great deal of information about the different experiments used to explain the self forming of the basic molecules for RNA and the primal cellular structures. One thing though is the direction of the math functions on the wiki. The processes that discribe the self forming of molecules are normaly supported with a thermodynamic model, if the reaction is spontaneous or not. So I guess what I am asking is how far is ASK with the adding of the math functions?--Timsh 13:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're planning on using maths formulas for abiogenesis I have to wonder if it couldn't be done more simply. But to answer your question, no further than in the link in the section above, I'm afraid. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The math is really not far beyond algebra, (I would try to keep calculus out of it) it is just easier with formating to line up the math symbols. Most of thermodynamics is algebra based.--Timsh 14:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


It might be a little easier to upload some images for the articles I create. For example the experiment I just wrote having a figure of the different bands in relation to the concentration gradient of the CsCl makes the case clearer. A picture is worth a hundred words.--Timsh 14:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the Membership page? Given the number of your mainspace contributions so far, I don't feel comfortable about nominating you for membership via a vote, but perhaps you meet a different requirement there, especially given your claim of earlier contributions to Conservapedia, etc. Also, given an edit comment of yours I just noticed, you should read ask:Copying from other sites. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Which one, the Stahl experiment? I am still writing the DNA synthesis article. The stahl experiment is a summary of what happened. The meat is in the pnas link where the actual paper is listed. Do you want a different format for lit cited? I guess I am asking what you mean.--Timsh 14:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to this edit comment. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Very important e-mail :)

Hi Phil,

Been a while! But I just sent you a "very important e-mail," to turn a phrase. Just wanted to see if you'd noted it and, though I meant to say it in the e-mail, I hope you and your family are doing well.Ames 21:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did get it (twice, I think), and will deal with it. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I didn't mean to send it twice, sorry about that... weird... Excellent, thank you again!.-Ames 04:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


Just so you know, we're:

<div style="border:4px #000 solid; padding:0.5em; background:#ff0000; font-size: 200%; text-align: center;"> '''On strike!''' </div>

--Acionyx 20:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Shut up, CUR. ħuman Number 19 02:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Help! I'm being oppressed! --Acionyx 21:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
No, you're being edited for clarity. Now where's my Scotch, Arthur? ħuman Number 19 01:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Can I be the official creator of aSK userboxes? (Please be aware that I have already picked the drapes for my office. They are burgundy, and rather stylish.) New3.pngPink(Inertia presides over burnt modernist strides) 16:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What would the role of "official creator" be? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Not much, really. I was envisioning something like a note on the template page that says "For new boxes, talk to Pink". New3.pngPink(Inertia presides over burnt modernist strides) 13:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
How about putting a note on the page that you are available to help with creating user boxes, but in such a way that others can add their own names to the list also if they wish, including for other templates. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I think we already have a list like that. I think it's called "the userbox project", but I forget where it is.
Quick suggestion! The userboxes are currently displayed as code in the template list. What do you think of instead converting that section into a seperate page, where each box would actually be displayed, for ease of selection? It might be as simple as adding a bit of code to the {{tl}} template. New3.pngPink(Inertia presides over burnt modernist strides) 15:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Members Nominations

I was thinking it might be a good idea to advertise Category:Membership candidates so we can get more members voting. Otherwise, it doesn't seem that anyone is going to get the ten votes they need to become a member. StairFernoKlumpWay 22:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been thinking the same thing. I'll put it on the top of each page. I'll also lower the requirement to seven votes as a temporary measure while we still only have relatively few members. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, see this. I count seven.BradleyF (LowKey) 05:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I had seen it. I've now promoted him. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


Taking it to a whole new level, my friend:)! Ungtss 17:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome, Ungtss! Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 00:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Slightly puzzled

What exactly is the difference between those two things? New3.pngPink(Inertia presides over burnt modernist strides) 00:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What two things exactly? "Hate" vs. "Hatred"? No difference. "Belief in" vs. "Hatred"? Do I need to explain that? I think my grammar's a bit poor, though. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 00:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm just not sure what part of the original you objected to. To the best of my knowledgge, you have to posit the existence of a God in order to hate it. Were you taking "belief in" to mean something other than "believes in the existence of"? New3.pngPink(Inertia presides over burnt modernist strides) 00:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
There are atheists who show every sign of hating God, even though they ostensibly don't believe in Him (not "it", by the way), and the definitions did not include "believe in" as part of the definition. If belief in God is a necessary condition of hating God, then surely there's no need to spell it out.
And by the way, if your earlier edit conflict was with me posting in the section above, that's probably caused by you creating this section by editing the section above rather than clicking the "+" tab at the top of the page. Doing the latter should not have caused an edit conflict, so this is one way to avoid them.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
From checking a few definitions, you seem to be right. I suppose it was my fault for expecting the word to be logical. :(
Also, since the term is general, referring to any potential God, I think "it" is correct. For example, if I believed in Shub-Niggurath, I would probably be a misotheist. New3.pngPink(Inertia presides over burnt modernist strides) 09:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding "it", your sentence was poorly constructed, in that it referred to "a" god (i.e. non-specific), but also to "God" (capital "G", usually used specifically of the Judeo-Christian God). If you were not being specific, then "it" is fair enough, but if you were being specific, "it" is incorrect. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 04:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that Philip's confusing the atheist's attitude to god (that it doesn't exist) with the attitude to god's believers, who many atheists pity for their self delusion. They probably hate the believers for their perversion of the universe and their attempts to de-educate others into the same perversion. User 11speak to me 12:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
"Pity" and "hate" are two different things, and I don't agree that the hate is always to the believers. And of course what the believers believe and teach is not a perversion (atheism is!) and therefore their educational attempts are not "de-educating". Of course, like you, I have written that from my POV, but seriously, if you want to be taken seriously, an argument that amounts to "you're wrong and I'm right" without any substantiation is not going to be very convincing. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 04:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It took me a couple of reads to make sense of that. ^_^
But no, I think this far more likely just the standard argument from fundamentalists that atheists secretly believe in God, but pretend they don't out of spite. New3.pngPink(Inertia presides over burnt modernist strides) 12:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't consider the argument that atheists secretly believe in God to be a "standard argument from fundamentalists". I've heard the argument, and it makes some sense, but I'd never heard it until fairly recently. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 04:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know. But what they mistake for an attitude to god is, in fact the attitude to the believers. User 11speak to me 12:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be more accurate to say they don't recognise a distinction between those two things. Let's argue some more! New3.pngPink(Inertia presides over burnt modernist strides) 13:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not arguing, I'm giving an opinion, based on what I know of atheists and atheism, on the mistaken opinion of believers. User 11speak to me 14:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Aw. You're no fun. :( New3.pngPink(Inertia presides over burnt modernist strides) 14:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm too old to match wits with a young whipper-snapper like you. User 11speak to me 17:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Madam, what you've just said amounts of defamation of character. I met Mr Whipper only once. No snapping took place. You will be hearing from my solicitor. New3.pngPink(Inertia presides over burnt modernist strides) 21:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement of faith?

Do you have a personal statement of faith available somewhere that I could look at. I am interested in contributing here, but I would like to see what your foundational beliefs regarding Jesus Christ are. :-) --Tom Major 05:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've replied by e-mail. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 06:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Evolving policies

Hey man -- seems to me the key thing that has been missing in the other projects like WP, CP and CW is a set of rules that allow the alternative viewpoint to be heard in a balanced way. User:RuyLopez is now deleting links to pro-evolution articles. Perhaps the solution is to make a reg on this issue that we can refer to? Rough suggestion:

  • "SOK assumes a biblical point of view. However, a Biblical worldview requires fully understanding other points of view, and the reasons used to defend them. Consequently, while non-biblical views will be secondary to biblical views, they will be fairly described and evaluated. They will not be censored. To the maximum extent possible, they will be clearly and concisely described in the words of their proponents before being evaluated from a biblical point of view." Ungtss 09:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Regulation 5 already covers this to some extent, and I've just modified it (including something that I've been thinking about for a while). I'm not sure that I want to go much further than that regarding links. The bit about coverage of alternative viewpoints bears a bit more thought. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Phil

Hope all is well. Just dropping by to tell you I haven't disappeared and that I plan on coming back soon. Neveruse513 14:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


As my fellow countryman Jeeves has been blocked for stating his opinion, (But what other sort of argument could I have expected from someone willing to take the word of an idiot creationist, who seems to thing Richard Dawkins is a eugenicist, or that bioinformatics has anything to do with the study of information theory.), that one particular creationist was/is an idiot. I would be obliged if you would rescind my "membership" as I have no desire to be a member of a website that takes arbitrary action in defense of the indefensible (CP anyone?) User 11speak to me 17:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(Not indenting as there are too many hard returns)Theresa, firstly, loyalty is laudable, but in this case apperas misplaced or mistaken. Jeeves was not merely stating an opinion, the comment was not about one particular creationist, and the action was in no way arbitray. Nor was it indefensible. It is all well recorded at Talk:Genetic_information but since you made allegations here, let's examine it here. Here are the relevant parts of some quite long posts (Jeeves posts are unindented, PJR's indented by one):

First exchange:

You simply assert … you can just tell by magic…?

Why is it you have so much trouble being honest about this?

That is simply you grossly misrepresenting my explanation
Why do you mischaracterise my attempts at explanations as dishonesty?

Second exchange: If you were talking nonsense before, you've now gone entirely over the edge…

…if you had even the vaguest layman's appreciation of biology you would know this. But what other sort of argument could I have expected from someone willing to take the word of an idiot creationist… (notice, no specific creationist mentioned, despite your assertion).

And yes, you are using magic.

Your attempt to shift the burden of proof just illustrates your desperation. How am I to show an increase in information when this whole damn discussion is about you failing to tell me how I am to quantify the information in the first place? You need look no further than that for dishonesty.

Justify that claim or apologise or you will be blocked for being bigoted (here is the warning, specifically about the “idiot creationist” claim, that Jeeves mischaracterised as a “threat”, notice the opportunity to actually BE specific here)

Third exchange: The reason I didn't explain why you were wrong is because the natural reaction to someone telling you you're talking garbage is to go and recheck (or in your case, actually learn for the first time) if what you are saying is actually true. If you really need me to hold your hand through the process, then fine.

I'm more or less speechless at the breadth of the ignorance displayed in this response. (I would suggest less)

Why on earth did you think you could possibly lie to [me] …

Oh, and good work on threatening to block me.

(I could find nothing in this post to either back up or back down from the “idiot creationist” claim)

By accusing creationists of being idiots without any justification for the accusation, you have crossed the line, and will, as you were warned, be blocked.

So Jeeves was repeatedly rude and insulting, and Philip called the insults for what they were, but specifically warned Jeeves to back up the one insult that was not aimed solely at Philip personally, or apologise for it, or be blocked. What was the response? Jeeves continued the personal insults and mocked the warning. Options A and B having been passed over, option C was enacted. So as I said, the action was not arbitrary or indefensible.

I fully acknowledge that discussion can get heated and frustrations get expressed in posts, but this was a case of personal - and then general - insults. Repeated accusations of dishonesty, incompetence and ignorance should either be well substantiated or foregone altogether.

It may be apparent that I am rather indignant over this. I am getting tired of the repeated refusal to abide by A Storehouse of Knowledge's standards followed by cries of "FOUL!" when, after cautions and warnings said refusal has negative consequences. In this case Philip was extremely patient and forbearant in the face of many insults, and drew a clear line when an editor began making sweeping insults about others. When the inevitable happens (in the face of the editor's refusal to either back up or recant the insults), the editors unnaceptable behaviour is actually defended.

Secondly, didn't you already quit once (and keep right on editting)? The problem with making a public display of resigning but not either leaving or retracting the resignation is that it renders any repeat performances questionable. BradleyF (LowKey) 01:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Theresa, I will remove your membership status, as that is you wish. As it is by your request, you can ask for it to be reinstated at any time, if you do so choose. But to reinforce what Bradley said above, your reasons are incorrect. True, Jeeves did use the singular "creationist", but there was no "particular" creationist mentioned, and it read as though the "creationist" was an idiot simply because he was a creationist. As such, it applies to all creationists, not a particular one. And as Bradley said, he had opportunity to clarify the claim. The block was for the insult, not for "stating his opinion" as you claim. Many opinions are stated here, including many I don't agree with. So stating an opinion is not the issue; gratuitous insulting of others is. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It needed to be reinforced? Wow. I was actually concerned over the tone of my post, but truly felt it needed to be said. BradleyF (LowKey) 02:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it didn't need reinforcing. I just had some things I wanted to add, and in so doing I was reinforcing your comments. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


As you probably don't know, RationalWiki will be celebrating its second anniversary on or about Friday the 22nd. While I know you have many things to keep you busy here, you're welcome to pop in and say "hi" if you want. My talk page there will likely be a bit of a wreck, since we're going to stick the cruder alcoholics in there, but there should be a more family friendly place too, for our underage or non-drinking members and visitors. Hope to see you around, if only for a few minutes. Oh, it's BYOB, but we'll have plenty of goat pilaf and other snacks. ħuman Number 19 00:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So you missed the real birthday in April? Thanks for the invitation, but I will pass. Although RW has done some useful things in exposing some of the problems with Conservapedia, that doesn't excuse it being a place of filthy and blasphemous language, replete with name-calling, smearing, innuendo, hypocrisy, and other undesirable attributes. And for those who don't follow my reference to the April birthday, like RW frequently criticises Conservapedia for, it "memory holed" or "erased the history", not just of individual pages as Conservapedia is known to do, but of the entire first version of the site. The May 22nd birthday is of the second version. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
That pretty low Philip. At our place we may do as we wish but when we come to yours we remain, aside from a few and far between exceptions, well behaved and civil. You could have just said "no thanks". Ace McWicked 04:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Ace, WIGO; So how low is RW? Glass houses, stones etc. BradleyF (LowKey) 04:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Still not a friendly way to reply to a friendly offer, no? Plank, Mote etc. Ace McWicked 04:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Catch22. Thanks for the invitation, but I will pass. was plenty friendly, but I would expect would have been criticised as dismissive unless a reason is given. A reason is given and is criticised for not simply being Thanks for the invitation, but I will pass. The fact it the reason is perfectly valid, and still much milder than the tone of the criticism of aSK at RW. It is unfair to call the above low, when it is far cleaner and fairer than what is posted about aSK at RW. If a place of filthy and blasphemous language, replete with name-calling, smearing, innuendo, hypocrisy, and other undesirable attributes is the mote, what is the plank (which obviously is similar to that but of greater degree)? BradleyF (LowKey) 04:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
You creationists are all the same. Look at your arguing style above. Its wordy, contains little information and certainly doesnt increase the information of the current conversation. A polite gesture should be met with a politle reponse regardless. That is all. Ace McWicked 05:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow, Philip, I was just inviting you over to say "hello". Also, RW1 started in March, or even Feb., as I recall, and was just a silly place to blow off steam after dealing with CP. There was no attempt to "build" anything useful. But RW(2), as it is now, started from scratch on May 21/22 2007. (You'll note, if you care, that I saved and copied my talk page in as "archive zero", as did many others). Also, you will note I said there would be a "family friendly", ie, non filthy, blasphemous page where you might feel comfortable popping in for a moment. As far as your other compliments on the site, I'm glad we don't use that kind of language around here. Oops. You didn't footnote a single accusation. Anyway, I just wanted to invite you to take ten seconds to pop by, not to intend that you would be "ratifying" all that is RW by doing so, but because we have all known each other for so long. Sorry if I hit a nerve, or insulted you. And Bradley, what business is this invitation from myself to PJR of yours? I didn't invite you, I don't know who you are, and I doubt you are interested in RW anyway. ħuman Number 19 05:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Human, I wasn't speaking of the invitation, but of Ace's comment about Philip's reply. I only interjected when Philip's reply was called "low". I currently have little forbearance to offer "more civil than thou" posts. I had nothing to say regarding the invitiation (as you say, not my business). Forgive the intrusion. BradleyF (LowKey) 05:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it's not my place, but it did seem rather harsh. It certainly sounds like it's sending the message that they aren't welcome here. That would quiet down the talk pages a bit. --LiamG 05:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I just think the general rules of etiquite apply. That was my point, Human was gracious in his offer and a gracious reply was the proper thing to do. Ace McWicked 05:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for my comments. I meant it to be a bit of a light-hearted "dig" and explanation for declining, not a rant. While my description was accurate, I'll accept that this was not an appropriate occasion to make those comments, so I'm sorry. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 06:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Your "declination" is taken in the spirit in which you meant it. You probably know that on our site we play fast and loose with that sort of commenting style. Here (on ASK), we tend to take comments seriously. Yes, we do sometimes suffer from losing things in translation between wiki styles. I do appreciate your reply. And, seriously, I hope we will have a "family friendly" page if you eventually do choose to drop by and say "hello" on our 2nd anniversary. Believe me, we will be the first to notice and celebrate your first anniversary! (I hope - wait, that means I still won't have a life!) PS, we aren't hiding our history, it's all here. Cheers, and sorry if I created any unnecessary acrimony.
I found Mr Rayment's initial reply frank rather than rude, and to me Mr McWicked was the first to breach etiquette by jumping in and complaining. Even if Philip had been rude, to interrupt and point it out would have been rather poor form in my book.--CPalmer 09:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A request for resources

Hello, Mr. Rayment. I briefly edited at Conservapedia (on a range from needless snark to passably constructive editing) before being blocked due to "opposing the goal of the project" (or some similar phrase), and while we didn't really intersect while I was there, you're one of the few editors I really came away from there respecting, even if I disagree with some of your beliefs and the way you sometimes argue or express them. So it made me feel good to see you separate from CP and start your own project, as I don't think being there was good for any aspect of your health.

At this point I must admit that I'm not sure whether I will contribute anything to this wiki, and if I were to do so, I must also admit I would likely produce some irregular articles (for example, I've recently begun to gain an interest in various claims about other religions becoming part of or being explained by early scholars as inspired by Christianity, like objectionable pagan spirits and deities believed to have been transformed into saints by various churches, or the notion that some early Christian cultural historians believed that Baldur from Norse mythology was a corruption of Jesus Christ). So I can't offer any help at this point, which I am actually sorry for (despite being a big fan of WIGO).

What I am here for now is a simple matter: you, of all the people I've seen on the internet, are the one I would most trust to link me to a site offering an intelligent refutation to a biblical criticism - or in my upcoming case, an explanation for a biblical mystery. I'm sure you are well aware that finding the answer to such problems is not quite as easy as plugging them into Google - the internet encompasses an unthinkable number of personal beliefs, and it's quite easy to end up through the looking glass by accident. I may struggle to accept some aspects of YEC, but I am well aware that there is much, much "worse" out there.

So I was hoping you could help me find resources concerning a simple matter that popped into my mind on a casual read of Genesis the other day: the issue of Adam, Eve and their nudity. Genesis 2:25 indicates that the pair were created naked and did not feel shame about this. Well, okay, that's fine. What comes up confuses me a bit.

When they ate the forbidden fruit, they realized they were naked, and then created clothes to cover themselves up. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I always interpreted this as meaning they suddenly felt that being naked was wrong and shameful. But when I thought about this more critically, it bothered me. Did the fruit reveal to them the truth, that it is indeed wrong to naked, and if so, why did God allow them to go about naked before? Furthermore, where did the judgment that being naked was wrong come from - God? Why would he decide something is wrong, then allow Adam and Eve to do it anyway? And if it wasn't God that decided that, how did Adam and Eve know it was wrong?

(as a further nitpick, why did they still hide after making clothes under the claim that they were naked? perhaps it didn't occur to them to put them on?)

Anyway, if you happen to know any links offhand that deal with this, that'd be great. If not, don't sweat it. Pascal 07:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but what name did you use on Conservapedia? My block list doesn't list anyone named "pascal", nor does any block reason contain the words "opposing", "goal", or "project".
If you want to stick around and write something, perhaps it could be on your creationist namesake!
Anyway, to your main point. I don't know of anything off the top of my head, and with a quick search of a few sites I didn't turn up much either. If I can try giving an answer myself, it was that their shame at having sinned left them feeling exposed and vulnerable. Making clothes (which I'm sure they donned) went some way to alleviating that, but it was not enough, so they hid also. It's not that there was anything wrong with being naked to start with—that's the way God made them, after all—but rather that they originally had nothing to be ashamed of. This article may make things a bit clearer, although it's not directly addressing your question. This article also explains the difference between a "guilt culture" and a "shame culture", which again does not directly address your question, but may have some relevance as although western society is mostly a "guilt culture", most other societies are and have been "shame cultures". I'm suggesting that Adam and Eve didn't so much feel guilty, as feel ashamed, and that manifested itself in them feeling vulnerable and exposed by being naked.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were the one who blocked me (it was Ed Poor who did so, and I've seen him block for that reason several times before and after). For the time being, I'd rather not disclose my Conservapedia identity, although it wasn't exactly a notable one. As for my namesake...well, it's actually more of a case of a name I liked than actually based on him. That said, although I don't have the personal aptitude for the subject, work on articles detailing the intersection of faith and mathematics would be interesting.
Your answer to my questions is quite interesting in itself - I hadn't considered the aspect of vulnerability and the way it's altered by emotions. I also had never heard of the concept of "guilt/shame cultures". Thank you very much for your thoughts and those links. Whether I contribute or not, good luck with this project. Pascal 06:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and I'm pleased that you appreciated the answer. Now that you point it out, I see that you didn't say I blocked you. I obviously read that into your comments. And yes, that block comment does sound like something that Ed Poor would put. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 06:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A new project page

Hello! Just FYI, I hope you don't mind, but I created a new project page in the community portal. I'm not sure if I'm editing in areas that you'd rather I didn't. Just trying to feel things out! Cheers!--MAstEr oF pUPetStalk! 02:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no problem in principle with doing what you did. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi Philip. I left a message on the copyright talk page. I want to contribute here but am concerned about copyright. Is anything going to change regarding this? --TheEgyptian 17:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find copyright terms starting from the main page. Not a good idea... ħuman Number 19 06:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't either, had to dig a bit to find info. It is a concern. I'd really like to get some updates on this. What's so bad about GNU-FDL anyway? --TheEgyptian 14:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a response on the copyright talk page. Every page has an "about" link, and the ask:About page links to the copyright page. Not saying that it has to be that way, but that does seem reasonable. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


Discussion moved to ask talk:Template list.


Is it possible to disable the Captcha requirement for members only? It gets a little annoying and I wouldn't think that we'd have to worry about established members going on a vandal spree with external links. Thanks. FernoKlumpDrugged-up Communist! 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as I can figure out how to do that (and I expect that I could), I don't see a problem. I can't do it right now, but remind me if I haven't done it in a couple of days (and when I do it, I will list it on ask:software changes). Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
There should be a way for it to disable after the user is autoconfirmed. Depending on the network used, the user threshold could be up to 90 days.--MAstEr oF pUPpetStalk! 14:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've turned it off (I believe I have) for members.

I don't like the autoconfirmed group for reasons that I explain here

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems to work for me. FernoKlumpDrugged-up Communist! 23:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello again

I'm just finishing up my semester at school, So starting with the end of this week, I should be getting back into active mode. --TimStalk 03:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Tim, nice to see you. I'm in about the same place Phil, I've got another week of finals before I'm done with the semester. I should be back here soon after that! Taj 03:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


I'm importing referenced articles from Liberapedia about democracy etc where we agree with you. Proxima Centauri 08:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you read this? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 09:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Mahalo for the membership! --MAstEr oF pUPpetStalk! 23:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Image uploading

I tried uploading an image but it wouldn't allow it. I would browse for the file, but when it goes to save it, it says, "The file you uploaded seems to be empty. This might be due to a typo in the file name. Please check whether you really want to upload this file." I tried three times, and it says the same thing. Am I doing something wrong? Thanks!--MAstEr oF pUPpetStalk! 13:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like the file is empty! Sure you're not trying to upload a shortcut to the image rather than the image itself, or something like that? Have you tried a different image to see if it is just the particular image that's giving problems? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Check the size of the file. When you try to upload something larger than 2MB I think you get that response. FernoKlumpDrugged-up Communist! 14:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The file size may be the problem. I have an 8 MP camera...--MAstEr oF pUPpetStalk! 17:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Does it need to be that large? Do you know how to resize images? Neveruse513 18:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Images, Maps, etc from Government sites

Hi Philip. I have been looking around, but I cannot find any definite guidelines on using government sites (for example the CIA factbook, or Library of Congress) as a public domain source for especially maps, flags and information (but that could be a glasses issue again ^-^). Where do we stand on that? -- KotomiTOhayou! 13:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as the text of articles is concerned, ask:Copying from other sites is applicable, and this basically says that article content is to be original, not copied from elsewhere.
As far as images (which includes maps and flags) are concerned, they can be used as long as we are legally allowed to use them (public domain, open licence, used with permission, etc.). All images should be tagged with a notice (template) indicating its copyright status.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
"It's" means it is. "Its" is what you mean here. People should be more careful with grammar, as it makes it hard to understand what you are saying otherwise. Sterile 03:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You're right. So I've fixed it. Would you like to fix your sentence that prompted all this? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


User:Theresa Wilson appears to be on a kind of vandalism spree, adding some guff called 'Godbotherers' morals' to various pages. Do we have a procedure for dealing with that, or shall we just wait for her to get tired of it and stop?--CPalmer 10:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

She's got tired of it. It wasn't vandalism, BTW, it was an attempt to get some rationality into a few articles. User 11speak to me 10:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Rubbish, Theresa. It was you expressing your frustration of a view that you don't agree with in a manner which you must know is inappropriate (and, incidentally, using fallacious arguments). As such, it was tantamount to vandalism, and on top of your insult to Bradley (on the Richard Dawkins talk page) means that I'm giving you a block. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
(not that she cares, but...) Let me plead for a shorter block for her. Her "insults" were only firing back at Bradley with his own weapons - the only difference being that he attacked a public figure, while she used him for her example. I don't know what Bradley's intentions were, but his words came across to Theresa and plenty of other readers as very offensive to Mr. Richard Dawkins - and she was just making a point to show Mr. Bradley this. Editor at CP 10:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, she wasn't being hypothetical as Bradley was with Dawkins, but specific. Further, the block was also for here "spree" of inserting nonsense into articles. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a question, do we have a blocking poliy? For example, (generally) first offense welcome with warning; second offense warning with next time block; third offense block? And when the block happens how do we temper the time period?--MAstEr oF pUPpetStalk! 12:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

We've not formulated a policy as such. Blocks for vandalism have generally been for a month or two or three. Members are only allowed to block for outright vandalism. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Could we adapt Tim's proposed blocking policy from CP? I like the idea of a written policy, so blocking isn't abused. FernoKlumpDrugged-up Communist! 23:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Would you like to copy it to here (perhaps here) so that we can discuss and consider it? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 09:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It looks like it used to be here, but was deleted by DeanS. Maybe Tim could dig up another copy saved somewhere or we could ask a sysop at CP if they could email us a copy. FernoKlumpDrugged-up Communist! 13:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I wondered if that was its fate, but I presumed from your previous comment either that it was still there or you had a copy. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a backup on my computer. (I had a feeling when I made it that was gonna be deleted)I'll dig it up and post it after I update it a bit for ASK. --TimStalk 19:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Copied to here. --TimStalk 19:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Tim. FernoKlumpDrugged-up Communist! 22:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

technical question

Hi, clicking on the link for most linked to pages gives me an error message:

Fatal error: Call to a member function getPrefixedDBkey() on a non-object in /home/astoreho/public_html/includes/specials/SpecialMostlinked.php on line 64

Thanks, Taj 10:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the solution. One site did mention the possibility of a page name with "bad title characters" such as & or °, but I can't find anything in mainspace with anything more unusual than an apostrophe. It need not be mainspace, though. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeeves' block and article deletions.

Philip, could you please look at the discussion at User talk:Theemperor and comment? BradleyF (LowKey) 13:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


I love what you are doing here, saw a news piece on CMI infobytes and had to sign up. I would love to see this project develop into popular use. I have had a share of difficulty on wikipedia as well.

I like the name, but it is kinda long. is available according to godaddy. Might you consider mirroring under a name like like? (Im not sure if that is possible) I just find that shorter, easier to remember, names have a better chance of growing popular on the net.

God Bless You!

ParadoxBrown 23:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Paradox Brown

Welcome, Paradox! Yes, the name is a bit long, and we often refer to it as aSK. Because the encyclopædia is a general encyclopædia (with a biblical worldview) rather than a biblical encyclopædia, I want the name to reflect that, rather than give the impression that it's an encyclopædia about just the Bible. (There'a already other Wikis out there that concentrate on just the Bible.) Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 23:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


Moved to talk:Slavery#Re Christianity.

Phillip That is an advertisement, not an article. It is not reliable as a source, no matter your view of Please do not cite it, even on Talk pages. Pascal 18:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because it mentions a book does not make it an advertisement. It's a (very brief) article, not an advertisement. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Nah, it's an ad. "Here are seven modern Chinese Characters that show that the ancient Chinese knew the Gospel message found in the book of Genesis. In the book God’s Promise to the Chinese by Ethel Nelson, Richard Broadberry and Dr Ginger Tong Chock, hundreds more are revealed." You have to buy the book to find the "hundreds" of examples. The "seven" are just a tease. ħuman Number 19 03:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
So you think that in order for it to be an article, it would have to disregard copyright and repeat all the images. Nonsense. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Phillip #2

Diff Whether the wording is "legitimate" or not is not the issue. Whether it's intelligent or not is. It's the opinion of some that hate crime laws are designed to censure those who oppose homosexuals. Many Christians may hold that opinion, but many Christians do not, and it therefore is not part of the Christian/Biblical worldview. You're resisting a change that will only help the reading of the article.

As for World Net Daily, I would really think it would be self evident with the conspiracy theories constantly posted and the fact that every page contains at least five ads for books WND is selling, but let me put it simply: that article, like the words said by both the leader of Log Cabin Republicans and Americans for Truth, is a load of sensationalist crap. If you can't see that, I really do feel sorry for you.Pascal 05:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So some wording that Wikipedia would describe as "weasel words" ("some believe") is "intelligent", but "appear" is not? I can't see the logic there. As for whether its part of the Christian/biblical worldview, many Christians hold views (such as evolution) that are unbiblical, so the mere fact that Christians hold opposing views in this case does not mean that they are part of the biblical worldview.
...that article, like the words said by both the leader of Log Cabin Republicans and Americans for Truth, is a load of sensationalist [rubbish]. If you want to remove the reference on the basis of the particular article not meriting inclusion, then make your case on that basis (and simply dismissing it as rubbish doesn't count as a case). But your rationale for removing it was not that the particular article was bad, but that the site as a whole was bad, and that is the rationale that I rejected.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 05:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

External links

Does the regulation about family friendly links concern user pages? I've noticed that some users have links to RationalWiki on their user pages which are apparently forbidden. --OscarJ 12:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should also include user pages. The links to RationalWiki may be okay if the particular pages they link to are okay. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User 11


I believe you to be a nice sort of guy with whom I could get along quite well on most subjects, but this thing of yours with Biblical innerancy (or whatever you call it) absolutely baffles me. How can you take the words of a book written by iron age tribesmen over current scientific belief? (I use the word "belief" intentionally - because it will change as knowledge increases) Your thing about railways I can understand (boys will be boys) but the absolute inanity of taking the word of a nearly prehistoric priest class baffles me - you seem to be otherwise an intelligent and rational person. The whole thing seems to boil down to "The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true" - a tad circular?
Wake up and smell the coffee. (reminds me I'm due another brew) Wallace (user 11) 04:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Philip, I've given Wallace the same block as Theresa. Wallace/Theresa, unless you are actually playing to the gallery you can easily email Philip, even when blocked. BradleyF (LowKey) 06:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Bradley. You're correct; she can e-mail me if she really wishes to discuss the matter. Ignoring the slightly put-down tone, the main paragraph is civil and something that I'll be glad to answer if she e-mails me, and just goes to show that she can be civil and rational if she tries. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Narr, thanks, I'll wait 'til the block(s) expire. I can be civil and am rational, It's just that this Biblical innerancy[sp?] thing makes me so angry - to see intelligent minds being wasted on this stuff. A Gent (User 11) 14:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC) OOPS - another sock down the toilet.
So if you can be civil, why aren't you? And name-calling and insulting is not being rational. Each further sock will result in your block being extended. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Impolite language

(CPalmer and other sensitive Americans, please close your eyes while reading this.) Regarding the previous two edits on this page (an edit and its reversal), Australians have a room in the house where one does one's ablutions, and we refer to this room (as well as the equipment in it) as the 'toilet'. Americans refer to this room as the 'bathroom' (which Australians use as the term for the room with the bath in it, which is often a separate room). When doing our ablutions we say that we are 'going to the toilet', whilst Americans say that they are 'using the bathroom'. This is because in America, the word 'toilet' is not used in polite company (or something like that). This has led to wording in the first edition of the Living Bible which sounds hilarious to us Aussies, wherein 'Saul went into a cave and used the bathroom' (quote from memory). (Explanation for Americans: How many middle eastern caves 3000 years ago would have a room containing a bath?) The point of all this, of course, is that some words are considered impolite in some cultures and not others, and vice versa (there's some words that Americans happily use that I wouldn't, for example), and that this would be an example of that. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I found that very amusing, thanks you PJR! Ace McWicked 02:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The verse is 1 Samuel 24:3. The "problem" is that in most cultures, including the culture of the time, what Saul did is referred to by a euphemism, and euphemisms don't necessarily translate well. Most modern translations substitute a modern equivalent euphemism, and have that Saul "relieved himself". The NKJV says that "Saul went in to attend to his needs". Older translations such as the KJV, on the other hand, translate the Hebrew euphemism, and say that "Saul went in to cover his feet". Because people squatted down to do the deed, their robes, which normally went down as far as their ankles, now covered their feet, hence the expression. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
So "does one's ablutions" is an Aussie euphemism for "poops"? I've never heard it called "covering one's feet" before, that's delightful. ħuman Number 19 04:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The Indian equivalent is "to ease oneself", which is perhaps even more delightful. Especially when the context is "by the side of the road." --Jeeves 20:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't object to the word 'toilet', but I find the phrase 'down the toilet' to be unsuitable for the kind of civilised, highbrow discussion I expect on this site, and that's why I censored it. A better idiom would have been 'up in smoke', or one could simply say 'wasted'.
If I was translating the Bible, I would say Saul 'answered nature's call'. Come to think of it, perhaps I'll propose that now for a Bible retranslation project I'm aware of elsewhere on the web...--CPalmer 10:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
To me, toilet isn't a nasty word at all. There are far worse things that could have been referred to. --WesleySHello! 13:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I would say "down the toilet" is informal, but offensive? Not really. It just refers to the physical object in my view. Sterile 14:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it was offensive, so much as unnecessarily coarse. Certainly I find 11's general attitude much more offensive, in particular her persistent ill-informed ranting about iron-age tribesmen. Maybe I should have changed that to iron-a** t****smen instead.--CPalmer 14:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You made "age" actually look coarse!BradleyF (LowKey) 00:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
To say nothing of "tribesmen"... ħuman Number 19 19:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
You'd do well to remember you censored the word "piss", which quite frankly if it's good enough for Shakespeare ought to be good enough for you. I don't want to live in a world where I have a room in the house that I can name, but can't talk about what goes on in there. (And remember, Bruce, Socrates himself was permanently pissed.) --Jeeves 19:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Also good enough for the translators of the King James Bible (e.g., 1 Samuel 25:22 KJV, 2 Kings 18:27 KJV). ListenerXTalkerX 19:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
As I said above, what is offensive/impolite varies from culture to culture. It also varies over time, hence the language (in the particular case mentioned) of the AV (KJV for Americans) is thought offensive today.
And nobody's suggested that you (Jeeves) can't talk about what goes on anywhere. The discussion is over how it's said, not what is said.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thought offensive by who exactly? The temperance league of easily offended old ladies and their retired colonel's gibbons OBE? Personally, I find it mildly amusing. Indeed, [deleted by PJR] up the wall is a fairly popular colloquialism even now, and one I've heard in a work context any number of times. This year on the UK Apprentice, one of the candidates remixed it on his CV saying that his previous job was to prevent people "spunking money up the wall" in his charmingly inept phraseology. Seriously, this war on the English language you have going on this site has to stop. There is nothing wrong with robust language, we have these words for a reason. Your idea of civilised discourse seems to include the participants pussyfooting around each other to avoid giving offence to an audience of imagined daily mail readers. --Jeeves 05:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
what is offensive/impolite varies from culture to culture. It also varies over time As does what is considered "truth". ħuman Number 19 05:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Come on Jeeves. There's nothing wrong or censorious about enforcing a bit of decorum, as a gentleman's gentleman like yourself ought to know.--CPalmer 08:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Now, there's the key word. Enforcing. Yes, "membership" on this wiki really is aptly named. In any case, it was from the archetypical gentleman's gentleman that I everything I know about our mother tongue. --Jeeves 08:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thought offensive by who exactly? I don't know exactly, but it is by some/many, even if not in your circle. I didn't realise that we had a "war" on the English language. Perhaps we do have such words for a reason, but that says nothing about whether or not it's a good reason!

As does what is considered "truth". And the operative word is "considered". Truth itself doesn't change.

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you want?

We were having a discussion Philip about having your POV represented is the "mass media" on Daniel212's talk page. I wrote this -
You are an evolutionist, and evolution is rampant on the mass media, so that claim is hollow. Firstly I dont know what an "evolutionist" is. I believe in the best and most plausible explanation given which is NOT creationism as it does not stand up to scrutiny. Evolutionist to me is a made up weasel word. Secondly how is evolution "rampant in the mass media? Do you mean that nature shows tend towards evolution as an explanation? That is because it is the explanation. As I said, if you want to change people minds, write a book, make a movie, write music, whatever but its pointless to sit there complaining. If you think you have a case then find a medium and convince people of your case. If people dont take to it or science disproves it, its because you do not have a strong case. Ace McWicked 20:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
But what I really want to ask you is, what do you want? For example - when a story like this breaks, do you think there should be a disclaimer? Ace McWicked 10:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've already said that I don't want the creationary view suppressed, and given an example that when discussing creation, they ought to also give time to the creationary view. That is, if the ABC's Science Show, for example, has a discussion about the creationary view (as they have done on a number of occasions), they should not have on the program only people such as Richard Dawkins or Eugenie Scott, but they should have spokesmen from a major creationist organisation, such as CMI. And they ought to treat them equally; they should not allow Dawkins/Scott to say whatever they want without question but interrogate everything the creationist spokesman says. That's the bare minimum they should do. It would be nice, however, in cases like your story, that the claims of evolutionists regarding the supposed evolution of the creature and its supposed age should be qualified with phrases such as "According to evolutionists, the two herbivores and one carnivore ... roamed our land during the Cretaceous period - 98 million years ago.". I'll answer the rest of your points on Daniel1212's talk page. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools

visitor navigation
contributor navigation