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

From A Storehouse of Knowledge

Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the talk page of Philip J. Rayment.

NOTE:

  • If I leave a message on your talk page, I will watch it for a reply.
  • If you leave a message on my talk page, I will reply to it here.
  • Please only leave a message here if is for me personally (including me as site owner). If it's a question about the rules, the software, templates, or whatever, please post it on the appropriate talk page rather than here. If it needs my attention, it may be necessary to post a message here to point it out to me, but the discussion should be on the relevant talk page, not here.

Please leave a new message here by clicking the "+" tab above, or by clicking here.

{{#vardefine:Dt|17 April}}
Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"
<stroclass="error">Error:th invalid, time</strong><stroinvalid class="error">Error:th, time</strong>)
{{#vardefine:Dt|3 August}}
Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"
<stroclass="error">Error:th invalid, time</strong><stroinvalid class="error">Error:th, time</strong>)
{{#vardefine:Dt|25 August}}
Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"
<stroclass="error">Error:th invalid, time</strong><stroinvalid class="error">Error:th, time</strong>)
{{#vardefine:Dt|28 November}}
Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"
<stroclass="error">Error:th invalid, time</strong><stroinvalid class="error">Error:th, time</strong>)
{{#vardefine:Dt|9 February}}
Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"
<stroclass="error">Error:th invalid, time</strong><stroinvalid class="error">Error:th, time</strong>)
{{#vardefine:Dt|21 March}}
Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"
<stroclass="error">Error:th invalid, time</strong><stroinvalid class="error">Error:th, time</strong>)
{{#vardefine:Dt|2 July}}
Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"
<stroclass="error">Error:th invalid, time</strong><stroinvalid class="error">Error:th, time</strong>)
{{#vardefine:Dt|26 August}}
Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"
<stroclass="error">Error:th invalid, time</strong><stroinvalid class="error">Error:th, time</strong>)
{{#vardefine:Dt|21 October}}
Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"
<stroclass="error">Error:th invalid, time</strong><stroinvalid class="error">Error:th, time</strong>)
{{#vardefine:Dt|12 February}}
Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"
<stroclass="error">Error:th invalid, time</strong><stroinvalid class="error">Error:th, time</strong>)
{{#vardefine:Dt|7 May}}
Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"
<stroclass="error">Error:th invalid, time</strong><stroinvalid class="error">Error:th, time</strong>)
{{#vardefine:Dt|2 July}}
Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"
<stroclass="error">Error:th invalid, time</strong><stroinvalid class="error">Error:th, time</strong>)
{{#vardefine:Dt|4 August}}
Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"
<stroclass="error">Error:th invalid, time</strong><stroinvalid class="error">Error:th, time</strong>)
{{#vardefine:Dt|3 April}}
Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"
<stroclass="error">Error:th invalid, time</strong><stroinvalid class="error">Error:th, time</strong>)

Contents

Because

"But the other interesting bit is the claim that the evidence for Christianity is overwhelming, but that there's something deep within us that resists it. This, in my mind, answers the question sceptics often ask, that if the evidence is so strong, why don't more people believe it? "

Because the evidence is flimsy at best, gets us nowhere and isn't an answer to anything. No predictions can be made, no falsifiability can be offered, no tests can be conducted. A world view that can allow for anything allows for no knowledge to be gained. Ace McWicked (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
That the evidence is flimsy at best is a bald assertion. You are responding to a comment by someone who became convinced over the course of years of study that the evidence is overwhelming. You simply dismiss it with a wave of the hand. You follow that up with more assertions that have already been answered in numerous places, including here. Failure to address the arguments that have been made means that your claims are hollow. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
You're an idiot. A dangerous idiot. Ace McWicked (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
When you stoop to name-calling, it strongly suggests that you have no argument to make. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit comments

Your edit comments are to imprecise to accurately determine if they are valid reasoning. Please provide copious justifications on talk pages. Steriledepraved mind! 11:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Many of your recent edits had no edit comments nor justification on the talk pages. Why do you expect me to provide more than you provide? Double standards? Where you did provide edit comments (which were often bald assertions), I provided at least as much in return. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, most of what I removed was uncited, unsupported generalizations. You encourage edit warring by your antics. Steriledepraved mind! 13:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
You should know that if something is uncited and you think it should be, the appropriate course is to ask for a citation. And much of what you added was also unreferenced and plain wrong. Don't blame me for your own lack of self control. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

So, what would change your mind?

I'm curious as to what your answer would be to the question posed to Ken Ham. To change my mind about scientific conclusions, my answers would be the same as Bill Nye's. To unambiguously convince me of the truth of Christianity (or maybe, more to the point, YEC), I'm certain that there are countless things that an omnipotent being could do that would suffice. -- Edgerunner76 11:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

For me, it would have to be convincing evidence that the Bible was wrong. And I don't mean "scientific" evidence, as (a) claims about what happened in the past are not able to be proved through observation, measurement, and testing, as we don't have the past to observe, measure, and test, and (b) claims about what is possible (such as whether or not people can rise from the dead) assume no God in the first place. (By way of illustration: Sagan said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but what is extraordinary about the claim that God—the one who created life—can bring someone back from the dead? In my mind, nothing, assuming that one accepts the existence of God in the first place. Of course an atheist won't do that.)
And given that the Bible has been attacked and scrutinised ad infinitum for centuries, and has withstood all those attacks, I can't see that it will ever be proved wrong. But, in principle, if it did, then I would change my mind.
As for your point of view, I believe that God has already done enough, but that your mind is not open to accepting it. In fact God has said as much, in Romans 1:20. Whenever I discuss with someone why they won't believe, I always find that they are being inconsistent, typically in expecting a higher standard of proof than they would accept for almost anything else, because that's about the only way that they can avoid facing the obvious conclusion.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 23:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
If you don't mean (a) or (b), then what do you mean? If you rule out statements about the past and statement about the possible, then what else could possibly be considered "convincing evidence that the Bible was wrong"? I think you just said you would not change your mind no matter what. —Awc 07:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
One possibility is the discovery of ancient documents showing that the Bible has been seriously doctored from what it originally was. Of course the evidence would have to be convincing (just as evolutionists expect convincing evidence before giving up evolution), so a single such questionable book would not do it.
My comment (a) was meant to refer to claims about creation, for example. I wasn't ruling out, say, overwhelming archaeological evidence.
But given all the confirming evidence discovered so far, it is very difficult to imagine how it could be proved wrong.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you really believe that there is enough evidence to unambiguously convince someone of the truth of Christianity, YEC, etc.? If there were, why would we be having this conversation? -- Edgerunner76 11:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
It depends on the person and how open they are. An avowed atheist is likely to refuse to accept even overwhelming evidence. The point is that this is not a purely intellectual argument. If you believe that the world was created, you have to accept the existence of a creator. The prime candidate is Yahweh (God) as documented in the Bible. If you accept the existence of God, you have to accept that He is in charge, and you are ultimately answerable to Him. The point is, ideas have consequences, and some people are unwilling to face those consequences so will do all they can to convince themselves that the "God hypothesis" is wrong.
Yet there are numerous cases of atheists and other non-Christians setting out to prove the Bible wrong only to end up as Christians. There was an atheist scientist back in the 1970s(?) who, based on the evidence, became a creationist, and then became a Christian, although mostly non-Christians become Christians and subsequently become creationists. One of the world's former leading atheists, Antony Flew, ended up declaring that he had become a theist because of the evidence of design in living things. (The atheist reaction was to suggest that the elderly Flew was going senile.)
Of course there are also those who have claimed to have gone the other way, although given the saturation of evolutionary propaganda in society and the effective censorship of arguments supporting the Bible and creationism, it's not surprising that some go the other way.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I phrased my question quite poorly. It should have been: Do you really believe that there is unambiguous evidence to convince someone of the truth of Christianity, YEC, etc.? If there were, why would we be having this conversation? I do not feel that this unambiguous evidence exists. But, I do believe that an omnipotent being could (and, I would add, would) have provided it. -- Edgerunner76 17:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that there is any such thing as unambiguous evidence. If God wrote something in the clouds for all to see, you would still have some people putting it down as a natural phenomenon, or the work of secret Christian zealots, not God. Of course God could do something that would make you believe, but then he's effectively turned you into a robot, where you have to believe because He's forced it on you. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 06:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Coincidentally, someone submitted a question along these lines to CMI recently (citing Kurt Wise's comments), and today they posted a response. It mentioned that if Jesus' bones were discovered, that would be reason to stop believing the Bible. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 04:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Apology for your blocking me.

You have equated "trolling" with extensive "not substantiating claims" and yet you have failed to demonstrate that I do this. I highly recommend you apologize to me for the block, as it undermines the only authority that's here. Steriledepraved mind! 17:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, I did demonstrate this, and I have rebutted your attempted refutation of that. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Pretty quiet round these parts

Must get lonely. What happened? Ace of Spades (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing happened—that's why it's so quiet!
Probably no simple answer, but part of it would be that the critics discouraged the genuine contributors, and with nobody to criticise, the critics themselves left, as they had nobody left to bother.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
My goal, which you said you approved of, has always been to see that the scientific evidence and consensus arguments are presented correctly in the relevant articles. I hope you consider that to be a genuine contribution. I haven't made any contributions recently because I feel that I have done a decent job achieving my goal. —Awc 09:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Awc, I wasn't referring primarily to you. If you were the only "critic", my comment above would be unreasonable. In fact I consider you to be one of, if not the, most reasonable of the contributors who disagreed with the site's stance. However, that doesn't mean that I think you were always totally objective; I still think that, to some extent, you were blinded by your worldview. But then none of us are totally objective, and all are influence by our worldviews. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 09:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
but part of it would be that the critics discouraged the genuine contributors - of course it is dear. Ace of Spades (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Well it was a timewasting, bad-faith, parodist sockpuppet that finally made me chuck it in for a while, and I never really found the time to get started again. I also know that a couple of the very early very genuine contributors stayed away primarily due to the behaviour of the "critics". LowKey (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Oh. He's gone already. LowKey (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Gone for months, and nary a creationist to fill the void? Why has no one filled the void? Even Philip can't be bothered to edit his own wiki! Yes, blame the "other" and not deal with your own failings. Steriletalk 23:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if that last sentence was specifically meant for me, but... As I said I never really found [or made] the time to get started again. My reason for chucking it in when I did was I think reasonable (limits to both my patience and the time I was willing/able to waste in endless argument). I was already pressed for time without the sideshow. I honestly think that if there was a return of active participation from multiple editors the endless arguments would also return. There are enough problems and conflicts already without going looking for more. LowKey (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I've been racking my brains trying to figure out who these discouraged genuine contributors are. Apparently I don't count. (Philip wasn't referring primarily to me, which means he was also referring to me.) So far my list consists of Philip. Period. —Awc 07:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Dont forget Ruylopez. Ace of Spades (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
who ? Hamster (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
[Offensive language and false accusations deleted] Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
chill dude. I was commenting on Ruylopez. Hamster (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Just block whomever you think is a problem and move on, Philip. We will support you in that. Then we'll see if your wiki thrives or not. Steriletalk 21:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you have the authority to speak for everyone, but I guess you do have that authority for yourself, so I'll accept the offer and block you.
You can ask to be unblocked (given that this block is at your invitation), but it would kind of destroy your credibility, having claimed that you would support me in doing this.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Please remove this block. It's cute, but it was made way outside of policy. Special:Block says "This should be done only to prevent vandalism". aSK:Sanction policy list a few more offenses, but only the Sanction Review Committee, after a Block Review, can impose a permanent block, usually after a fourth offense. Rules are rules. —Awc 13:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why I should remove the block. First, Sterile claimed that "we" (people other than me, presumably, which at the moment amounts to him, you, and Hamster), would support me in this, yet it seems that he is wrong (you're not supporting me) but you haven't disagreed with him.
The rules are meant to provide consistency and prevent admin abuse. But none of that is relevant when the user effectively asks to be blocked.
And if you want to get technical, the "rules" are explicitly stated to be guidelines.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes a new situation arises where it is necessary to invent rules on the fly. There is no such need to ignore the existing rules here. I consider your action to constitute admin abuse and request again that you reverse it. —Awc 14:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Sanction Review Committee = Umpire = Philip. There is the concept of Spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law but that seems foreign to PJR when he benefits from pedanticness. Of course since sterile asked for a block he is free to change his mind any time at all. Since none of us (sterile, asp, awc, et al) have been here for months and the sensitive editors have not returned en mass its difficult to see how we could have been the problem. Hamster (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Sterile did not ask to be blocked. Which would have been silly since he is free to go any time, or even to block himself. There is evidence that he thought that he himself was a "problem". —Awc 19:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree Awc. "I don't think you have the authority to speak for everyone, but I guess you do have that authority for yourself, so I'll accept the offer and block you." was PJR response to Steriles comment "Just block whomever you think is a problem and move on, Philip. We will support you in that." In context that was an invitation for Phillip to man up and remove the perceived troublemakers. Since he only blocked Sterile ,you, I and presumably everyone else is not seen as a problem. Admin abuse does not apply because PJR is the only admin, referree and committee so regardless of his conduct he will find himself justified. Hamster (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I consider your action to constitute admin abuse and request again that you reverse it. I don't consider it abuse, given that Sterile effectively asked to be blocked, and I offered to unblock him if he wished.
Since he only blocked Sterile ,you, I and presumably everyone else is not seen as a problem. That does not follow. I only blocked Sterile because only he offered himself. He did also offer others, but I didn't consider it appropriate to take up that offer involving others who had not themselves offered.
Admin abuse does not apply because PJR is the only admin, referree and committee so regardless of his conduct he will find himself justified. Again, your conclusion does not follow from the premise. I find myself justified because of the facts of the circumstances, not because of my position. You leap to your preferred conclusions with insufficient evidence.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Who do you see as a problem? Everyone? I won't ask to be blocked, but if you declare I am more of a problem than a resource, I will go away and not come back. —Awc 16:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

A mini essay

You're a hard one to categorise, Awc. But let me point out a few things.
  • Apart from some minor updates, I didn't do any mainspace (including talk page) editing from 15th October to 8th May.
  • But neither did anyone else for most of that time (with minor exceptions like Colonel Sanders doing a minor edit recently)
    • You did nothing from 5th November until recently.
    • Hamster did nothing from 15th October
    • Sterile did nothing from 19th November
  • When I did resume, I wrote two new articles, neither of which was apparently of any interest to the critics (you, Sterile, Hamster, etc.)
    • I also updated the News section of the main page, including highlighting an article that I thought might attract some criticism. I didn't do it for that reason, though; I only did it because I had it was a pending news article from last time I updated the News section. And in fact that article hasn't been criticised by anyone.
  • Then a banned user violated his ban with a new account and posted a snarky(?) question on my talk page (the start if this section).
  • This was followed by other critics criticising me and/or making changes to, commenting on, and/or criticising articles which I hadn't recently edited. So apart from my talk page stuff here, this was not a response to my edits.
    • I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with that in and of itself. What I'm pointing out is that just my presence, or the fact that there is activity, is enough to motivate the critics.
  • And look at the activities of the critics:
    • Ace violated a ban.
    • Sterile is a serial troublemaker, making frequent criticisms, but frequently refusing to substantiate his claims, as I've documented numerous times. He contributes almost nothing to articles other than removing things he doesn't like or reverting my edits.
    • Hamster is similar, although he does sometimes contribute very small amounts to other articles (e.g. here). One of his characteristics, though, is to criticise by making claims about what the Bible teaches without actually giving a reference or demonstrating that the Bible does teach that, such as this example.
    • You, Awc, are quite different. You make a genuine attempt to improve articles, and clearly do research to support your edits. The main problem with you is that you are doing it from a worldview that is opposed to (or incompatible with) that of this site, and can't see how much that worldview affects your decisions.
    • To give an example, you objected to describing GLAAD as "a pro-homosexual group that pushes the homosexual agenda by attempting to censor opposing views, in part by attempting to destroy the careers of public figures who speak out against homosexuality." Your objection was that "It is not the place of an encyclopedia to make value judgements". Yet, as I mentioned, encyclopædias do this all the time. To give an example of that, Wikipedia describes the Islamic State as "an Islamic extremist terrorist group". Isn't that also a value judgement? You might respond that it's a factual statement, but the factualness of the GLAAD description wasn't your objection. And if Wikipedia decided to describe IS in a more "neutral" way, wouldn't that also be a value judgement? In producing an encyclopædia, one of necessity makes value judgements. The whole principle of NPOV that Wikipedia has is, logically, impossible. Even wanting to have a Neutral Point of View is itself a Point of View!
That's one of the key distinctions between this encyclopædia and others such as Wikipedia: it doesn't pretend to be something that it isn't: value free. This point is made right up front on our main page.
So really, being "neutral" or being "value free" is simply code for "having a point of view or values that I'm happy with". It may not be code in the sense that the people making that claim are aware that it's not true; they are probably self-deluded and genuinely believe what they are saying, but it's false nevertheless.
To get back to your question about yourself...
CreationWiki does not accept as editors (of articles) people who are not creationists. They originally allowed them, but restricted them to talk pages, or uncontroversial edits to articles. Then they restricted them to talk pages only. I consider CreationWiki to be too controlling, and have wanted this site to be more open.
Further, because this is intended to be a general encyclopædia, I see no reason to restrict people who have an opposing worldview from writing and editing articles where ones worldview is unlikely to have an impact, such as some of Hamster's contributions on computing. To clarify that, I see no reason to restrict people who want to contribute in that way.
The problem comes when they want to edit articles in which worldview is a factor, or a significant factor. I don't want to start classifying articles into worldview-dependent and non-worldview dependent, so if I want to allow (for the sake of argument) atheists to contribute, it should be without unenforceable, ambiguous, restrictions such as only certain types of articles. And of course it's not just articles, but sections of articles. There would be many topics on which most of the content is uncontroversial, but some of it would be worldview-dependent. It would be silly to say that atheists couldn't edit those articles at all simply because there are small sections of them that they would have a different POV on.
Taking that a step further, if atheists can point out a genuine problem in a section of an article that takes a biblical worldview they should be (a) free to point it out, and (b) even free to fix it. So I don't want to be arbitrarily strict and say that they can't touch them.
No doubt much of that you'll probably understand and accept. The issue is not the black-and-white cases, but the subtler ones. To give three examples, starting with black-and-white ones:
  • This encyclopædia takes the position that God exists, and Jesus is God. No reasonable atheist here is going to want to dispute those claims (as in change the articles), as they accept that these are key views of an explicitly biblical-worldview encyclopædia.
  • If an article claims that World War II started in 1930, that is a clear error of fact, which an atheist should be free to correct.
  • If an article mentions (accurately) that scientist X was a Christian, is that relevant? An atheist might (depending on the circumstances) say no, whereas a Christian might say yes. As I've pointed out before, bias can be introduced to an article even if it only contains verifiable facts, simply by the selection of what facts are included. To take a contrived and exaggerated example, suppose a politician made comments both for and against a particular issue, and an article only reported his comments for that issue, omitting those against. Everything said in the article would be 100% factual, but the selection of comments introduces a clear bias.
So the issue is this. Atheists (to continue using them as an example) should be free to edit any article on this site, but they should not impose their atheistic bias on articles. But the problem is that they frequently don't understand which of their views is affected by their atheistic worldview. I see this frequently with the creation/evolution issue. They are blind to the fact that evolution itself is based primarily on a worldview, not primarily on scientific facts, so don't recognise that this is a worldview-based issue. Therefore, even though they might be happy to avoid changing articles claiming that God exists, etc., they feel free to change articles that they consider to be fact-based.
Hence friction arises, and it's in that category that I put you, Awc. No, you are not a trouble-maker in the same sense as Ace or Sterile (or Hamster). And I want to have people editing here who are prepared to question. But when the major part of their contribution is to dispute articles from their own worldview, it does cause problems.
For further reading, a couple of my essays:
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
There's not much there that is specific and directed at me. I know that worldview questions can be tricky both at Wikipedia and here. In the case of GLAAD, my primary objection was not so much the value judgements but the use of the poorly defined term "homosexual agenda". On creation/evolution your own worldview has often blinded you to seeing the true nature of evidence and arguments. I remember taking great care to formulate arguments (which I can't reproduce right now) without making circular assumptions about dating methods, but you were so convinced that arguments that conclude the Earth is old must be circular, that you couldn't see that that particular argument was not circular. —Awc 20:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
a christian should not need help in working out what bible verses refer to very common subjects Hamster (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
When that Christian has a different view of the topic being discussed, he needs to know what verses you are claiming to base your views on, because he can't see what you are claiming to see. Basically, your comment is an excuse for not making your argument properly. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 00:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
not an excuse Phil, just an observation that you, a claimed Christian, dont know your own holy book well enough to argue the finer points of scripture, not that homosexualty is a finer point. "an abomination, deserving of death" is pretty blunt a view. Hamster (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
No, that is not an observation; that is your excuse. It's not a case of me not knowing the Bible well enough; it's a case of me not knowing what verses you are referring to, so that I can address your understanding of those verses. If you claim the Bible says X, and I don't think it does, I might cite verses A, B, and C, to support my view, only to have you come back and say "But I'm talking about verse J", which, to me, is not relevant. So I'd be wasting my time, when you could simply tell me that you are talking about verse J in the first place. Then I could address verse J, perhaps explaining why I don't think it's relevant, or says what you claim it says. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
its an observation. I have not been cryptic, you should know the verse that I am using, there arent that many that would be close to it. That you dont even suggest one tells me that you dont know your book very well at all. Do you read an English translation ? that will lead you astray. " suffer not a witch to live" , if you start in on wiccans you missed the whole meaning of that verse. Hamster (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
a christian should not… Saying what a person should or should not do is not an observation; it's a value judgement.
I have explained why you are being unreasonable in not being more specific, and your response is merely more of the same buck-passing that I have already rejected. As such, your conclusion that I don't know the Bible very well based on your observation that I haven't suggested what verse(s) you have in your mind is an unsafe (and incorrect) conclusion, because it presumes that I would suggest a verse if I knew any such verses, despite me already pointing out a different reason for me not suggesting any verses. You are effectively calling me a liar, without hard evidence of such.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 09:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
if I wanted to call you a liar I would have said it directly. What a christian should know or do is specified very clearly in multiple verses. You should at the very least suggest a verse or ask directly what verse I was quoting. I will give you a hint. Leviticus 20:13 for the gays are an abomination, deserving death, their blood shall be upon them. Hamster (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
if I wanted to call you a liar I would have said it directly. So you are claiming that, although effectively calling me a liar, that wasn't your intention? I didn't say it was your intention; I said that's what it effectively amounted to. I note that you have not refuted that.
What a christian should know or do is specified very clearly in multiple verses. Another vague claim in order to criticise me.
You should at the very least suggest a verse or ask directly what verse I was quoting. I have asked on numerous occasions before, and you have typically declined to name them, which is why I said what I said.
I will give you a hint. Leviticus 20:13 for the gays are an abomination, deserving death, their blood shall be upon them. You actually referred to two things:
  • The bible however clearly states that any man who performs sodomy on another man IS TO BE KILLED.
  • incidentally the Bible verse that condemns the act perhaps of anal sex actually approves it for men and women.
I knew that there was a verse in Leviticus that matched your first claim, and I responded to that with the link to Mosaic law. That verse does not say what you claim in your second point, and it is not the only verse that "condemns the act". There is no reference to anal sex, let alone explicit approval of it between a man and a woman. So I had no reason to think that you were thinking of that verse.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
ok phil, how does a man lie with man as a man lies with woman , except for anal or maybe oral sex. ? The act of intercourse is simply physically impossible. Does God mean that two buddies shall not share a bed to sleep ? Since God does not say if a woman commits anal or oral sex she is an abomination it is implicit approval of those acts.
if someone says to me , "you are an abomination, deserving of death, your blood shall be upon you" I would take it as a threat of being killed. How about you ?
glad to here that being given the specific verse you figured out which one it was. Hamster (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
ok phil, how does a man lie with man as a man lies with woman , except for anal or maybe oral sex. ? By penetrative sex, if nothing else. It doesn't mean that the place of penetration has to be the same.
Since God does not say if a woman commits anal or oral sex she is an abomination it is implicit approval of those acts. You're subtly shifting the goalposts:
  • Your original claim was in the context of condemnation between males, so claiming that the Bible "approves" of it makes it sound like it's explicit.
  • You are now claiming implicit approval through silence. That may be, but it's not the impression you gave in the first place.
if someone says to me , "you are an abomination, deserving of death, your blood shall be upon you" I would take it as a threat of being killed. How about you ? And when have I disputed that?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
On creation/evolution your own worldview has often blinded you to seeing the true nature of evidence and arguments. I disagree, of course. And as a creationist, I recognise that views are worldview dependent (which doesn't mean that I'm blinded by mine), but I frequently find that evolutionists don't recognise that their views are worldview-dependent. They insist that they are purely evidence-based. An example is on the Main Page of this very Wiki: Unlike Wikipedia which claims to be neutral (as far as it can), this Wiki doesn't claim to be, because, unlike Wikipedia, it recognises that worldviews affect our views in all sorts of areas. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Good advice

Actually, technically, I didn't "invite" you to block me. Steriletalk 16:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sterile is a serial troublemaker, making frequent criticisms, but frequently refusing to substantiate his claims, as I've documented numerous times. He contributes almost nothing to articles other than removing things he doesn't like or reverting my edits.

  • Again, your asking questions does not mean I made unsubstantiated claims. You have not documented this, only writing your questions. You have not documented claims, affirmative declarative statements. Repeating it does not make it true.
  • You repeatedly revert more than anyone else here. If this is a problem, I suggest you rethink your actions. Why are your edits better than everyone else's?
  • Where have I removed something I don't like? This is a new accusation with no evidence. I usually remove inaccurate or poorly sourced information.
  • What's wrong with critics? Or is your wiki just supposed to be an echo chamber?
  • You have not demonstrated that my edits are not useful. I think Awc found my global warming conversations stimulating. Is it a requirement of this wiki to work mostly on articles? Where is this written?

You should unblock me because you cannot substantiate your claims. Steriletalk 14:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, evolution is supported by evidence. There are tons of individual observations supporting hypotheses to combine to evolution. Dismissing that by worldview is a lazy way of not even trying to make an argument. There's no reason to have an evidence against evolution section in an evolution article if we just have to consider only worldview, so you even implicitly acknowledge this. I'm sorry that's inconvenient to you. All the best. Steriletalk 14:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, technically, I didn't "invite" you to block me. True, and the only place I said that was on the block comment; at least two other times I said that you effectively invited me to.
Again, your asking questions does not mean I made unsubstantiated claims. I never said that it did.
You have not documented this, only writing your questions. That was my documentation. I asked you to substantiate your claims, and you frequently didn't answer those questions, and I often listed the questions that you hadn't answered.
You repeatedly revert more than anyone else here. If this is a problem, I suggest you rethink your actions. I didn't say that reverting was a problem in itself. I said that that was one of the only things you did to articles, which is not the case with me.
Where have I removed something I don't like? Pretty-well wherever you have reverted stuff I've added.
I usually remove inaccurate or poorly sourced information. Given that I provide lots of sources and am carefult to be accurate, I reject this claim.
What's wrong with critics? I didn't say that there was anything wrong with critics per se.
Is it a requirement of this wiki to work mostly on articles? Where is this written? It is an implied requirement of any wiki to be constructive, not to merely make non-constructive criticisms. In this context, criticisms based on your worldview are not constructive.
Furthermore, evolution is supported by evidence. Yet your link is not to evidence, but to an elephant hurling claim of evidence. Okay, the link did itself have some links to supposed evidence, but you know full well that the relevance of that evidence is hotly disputed. For example, the second link there is to homologies, which (a) point to something they have in common, which could be a common designer rather than a common ancestry, and (b) ignores all the exceptions to that evidence (including so-called convergent evolution).
Dismissing that by worldview is a lazy way of not even trying to make an argument. It's not a dismissal; it's a well-made argument with evidence. For example, the fact that science cannot observe, test, repeat, or measure the past, where essentially all evolution is supposed to have occurred. And that evolutionists frequently ignore or downplay contrary evidence (biological materian in dinosaurs, for example).
There's no reason to have an evidence against evolution section in an evolution article if we just have to consider only worldview, so you even implicitly acknowledge this. Well, given that, as I said, I wasn't just dismissing anyway, this point is moot.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 09:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
See above. Nothing new here. If you provide an actual list of unsubstantiated claims, I will consider answering them. Your questions are not unsubstantiated claims, as you admit. I'm tired of your games. It's tantamount to harassment, and if we actually had an administrative abuse page, I would take you there. Sterileserial troublemaker 15:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Probably true, nothing new there, as I've probably said all this before in response to you. But you continue to repeat it anyway.
And nothing new here either: My lists of unanswered questions are the lists of unsubstantiated claims*. So you are (nothing new) continuing to ask for things that (a) I have already provided, and (b) have already told you I've provided.
*—As I have pointed out before, the questions were not literally just asking for substantiation, but included asking for clarification, asking you to justify statements you had made, etc.
Your questions are not unsubstantiated claims, as you admit. I don't recall admitting that, but of course they are not: the questions are not the unsubstantiated claims; the questions concerned are asking you to substantiate (or otherwise justify or etc.) the claims.
I'm tired of your games. And I'm tired of you making claims, not substantiating them even when asked, denying that I've provided evidence of this, and so on. In other words, as acting like a troll. And then wanting an apology for being called on it.
But, yet again, I will give you an example (not a full list; there are multiple lists on multiple talk pages already), this one from the Talk:Homosexuality page.
  • You claimed It's truly bizarre, too, that I give you Wikipedia's language and then proceed to deny it, but it pretty much shows your inability to argue this point.
    • So you were claiming that I denied something.
  • I asked asked you to clarify what I had supposedly denied, because I didn't agree that that I had denied anything in that context: Pardon? What did I deny?
So technically, this wasn't a question asking for substantiation, but it was nevertheless a question about a claim that you had made that you had an onus to answer, given that you had made the claim.
I asked that question twice more (i.e. included it in two lists of questions you hadn't answered), but you still didn't answer.
So you made a claim, in this case a claim about me, and you failed/refused to respond to my question about it.
And that is just one of many examples.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 23:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
this wasn't a question asking for substantiation THEN WHY ARE YOU BRINGING IT UP? Seriously, if I'm supposedly so bad at this, and this is the best example you can come up with, and it's not asking for substantiation, then WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
All you want to do is to fisk and "just ask questions" into pretending you are correct about issues. That is why no one wants to come to your wiki, Philip. You are the problem. Sterileserial troublemaker 01:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
THEN WHY ARE YOU BRINGING IT UP? Now you're quote-mining, and ignoring that I answered your question before you asked it. You will note that I actually said technically, this wasn't a question asking for substantiation, but it was nevertheless a question about a claim that you had made that you had an onus to answer
Seriously, if I'm supposedly so bad at this, and this is the best example you can come up with, and it's not asking for substantiation, then WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? Seriously, I've already answered. You made a claim that I had denied something, and you failed, despite repeated requests, to justify it. And I never claimed that was the "best" example. There are so many that I didn't bother looking through them all to find the best one.
All you want to do is to fisk and "just ask questions" into pretending you are correct about issues. Another ad hominem without basis.
That is why no one wants to come to your wiki, Philip. You are the problem. In your opinion. I have a different one, based on what people have told me.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 04:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"My lists of unanswered questions are the lists of unsubstantiated claims" and "this wasn't a question asking for substantiation" would seem to contradict each other, and that's not quote-mining. Further, your list of questions cannot be lists of unsubstantiated claims, since those are two different things. Questions also allow you to go off track to the topic at hand, bring up new issues, etc. If you want to bring up unsubstantiated claims, then state so; do not phrase them as questions.

Do you have a current complaint about me? If not, please stop harassing me. Unless there is an active question at hand, there is no reason to dredge up your pissing matches from a year and a half ago, and I see no point. I moved the homophobia section to its talk page. I wasn't even discussing Bergman, and I have no intention of doing so. You seem to approve of Awc's change to peer review, then eliminating the need to have that conversation.

By all means, if you have a current complaint bring it up. Otherwise, I don't see the point.

And to "good editors" waiting in the wings, please, go ahead and take over. I'm not stopping you. I don't think there they exist to a great extent, or at least they haven't done so in half a year. Actually, I think for the most part, this wiki resembles most small wikis, smallish contributions at scattered times. I don't think that's really going to change without something to draw people to the site. Sterileserial troublemaker 13:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"My lists of unanswered questions are the lists of unsubstantiated claims" and "this wasn't a question asking for substantiation" would seem to contradict each other… My lists of unanswered questions amounts to lists of unsubstantiated (and unjustified) claims. All you are doing here is picking me up on my precise wording; you are not making a substantive response.
Questions also allow you to go off track to the topic at hand, bring up new issues, etc. Sure. Non-questions allow one to also. But that doesn't mean that any of my questions—or even most of my questions—were doing that. This is a red herring.
If you want to bring up unsubstantiated claims, then state so; do not phrase them as questions. There is nothing wrong with putting them in question form. If you say that "You said X", what is wrong with me asking "Where did I say X?". That's asking for substantiation, but in the form of a question, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Do you have a current complaint about me? If not, please stop harassing me. The only reason I discussed these matters again is because you denied being a problem.
I wasn't even discussing Bergman, and I have no intention of doing so. False. In the section of this discussion that you have now moved, you claimed, Bergman is not an expert in the field of sociobiology. I only asked to to substantiate this claim about him that you made here in this page.
And to "good editors" waiting in the wings, please, go ahead and take over. I'm not stopping you. First, I didn't say that they were "waiting in the wings". I said that the ones that were here have left. Second, according to what I understand, you are stopping them, simply by all your criticism. Simply denying this is not a rebuttal.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, is this some sort of inquiry about a current issue? Otherwise, there is simply no reason to have this conversation. Please stop your harassment and character attacks which, as far as I can tell, serve no purpose.
The only reason I discussed these matters again is because you denied being a problem. I don't believe I've confirmed or denied "being a problem."Sterileserial troublemaker 15:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, is this some sort of inquiry about a current issue? Otherwise, there is simply no reason to have this conversation. Please stop your harassment and character attacks which, as far as I can tell, serve no purpose. This is not harassment and not character attacks. They are rebuttals to your claims. You have already been blocked a number of times for your behaviour, and you are very close to being blocked again.
I don't believe I've confirmed or denied "being a problem." I gave several reasons for calling you a "serial troublemaker", and you denied those reasons. That amounts to denying my claim that you were a problem.
From one of your edit comments: I haven't had a discussion about Bergman in a year and half. I have no idea why you keep insisting on discussing your issues. False, again! You brought him up in the last few hours, on this page. And your previous claim in this regard is still there, so I've reinstated my response to you above. Making a claim then removing the response (even if to another page) while leaving the claim here, and denying that you made the claim is hardly intellectually honest.
These are all quotes from you, on this page, posted at the times shown. As you can see, the second and third contradict the first pair:
  • Bergman is not an expert in the field of sociobiology. and …you have yet to substantiate why Bergman is a good source. at 01:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I wasn't even discussing Bergman, and I have no intention of doing so. at 13:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I haven't had a discussion about Bergman in a year and half. at 15:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want to discuss Bergman, go to Talk:Homosexuality. I am not discussing it here. You brought up the Wikipedia reference, which is in reference to the Bergman discussion. Not me.
Philip: You are hounding me. I largely was doing nothing and you've now written pages and pages of text. About things that mostly happened in January 2014. For which I was blocked, apparently, but you insist upon bringing up again. Is that the way justice works here? Block, and then keeping bring it up, again and again and again? If that's not harassment and bullying, I do not know what is. You brought all this up again. Not me. Just stop it. Sterileserial troublemaker 15:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want to discuss Bergman, go to Talk:Homosexuality. I am not discussing it here. I didn't bring up Bergman, and I'm no longer discussing him here. Rather, I'm discussing your denial that you brought him up in this discussion. I have given you explicit evidence, yet you wave that away by saying that you're not going to discuss him.
You brought up the Wikipedia reference, which is in reference to the Bergman discussion. Not me. I mentioned Wikipedia as an example of something you had claimed and not justified. I did not mention Bergman in my example, and my example was to do with something that I supposedly denied that Wikipedia said. My example was not about Bergman. It was you who brought Bergman up by making a new claim about him, apparently to justify your response. If your claim about Bergman is critical to justifying your claim, then it's also critical that you can justify your subsidiary claim about Bergman. If it's not critical, then you've only yourself to blame for bringing him up.
Philip: You are hounding me. No, I'm doing what you so often fail to do: I'm addressing your claims and justifying mine.
I largely was doing nothing and you've now written pages and pages of text. "largely doing nothing" except disputing things that I said, followed by blatantly false claims, derogatory comments, etc.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

An aside by an unbiased editor

I don't believe I've confirmed or denied "being a problem." I gave several reasons for calling you a "serial troublemaker", and you denied those reasons. That amounts to denying my claim that you were a problem.

Phillip, dont you see the chasm of logic in that statement ?
Sterile may have denied specific claims made because they are false while still feeling that he is a problem for other unspecified reasons. Not that he has of course. Hamster (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hamster, I see your point, but you overlook something. I blocked Sterile because (a) he said that I should block troublemakers and that he would support me in that, (b) I considered him to be a troublemaker, and (c) I gave reasons for thinking that. In return, Sterile rejected those reasons, and said that I should therefore unblock him. By saying that I should unblock him because my reasons are wrong, he is not just rejecting the specific claims, but the basis for blocking, which was that he was a troublemaker. As such, he's effectively denied being a troublemaker also.
And if you really are the "unbiased editor" that you claim to be, why aren't you also disagreeing with Sterile's denial that it was him who brought up Bergman in the discussion above? Because you are giving the distinct impression that your criticism, civilly put though it was, is rather one-sided.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
giving reasons is an apparent justification. If that justification is not correct then the action was not correct. Hamster (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Bergman appears to be quite competant to make comments in his field. I thought you brought up Bergman , but its not an interesting discussion so I didnt pay much attention to it. Hamster (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Since you ask it was apparently you (PJR) that raised Bergman in a citation which is bad practice. Quoting A quoting B when you could just quote B is bad practice. Bergman carefully explains why from a scientific (i.e evolutionary) perspective the whole thing is a non-issue. You then chastise Sterile for trying to keep reasonable standards by pointing out that "it's my wiki" yet when I said that you objected. Hamster (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
for the record Phillip I have supported you on a few items where you made claims which are supported by a significant number of christian theologists. Hamster (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Let him simmer in his hate, Hammie. I'm sure all the creationists will come flocking to this site when we are all gone. Sterileserial troublemaker 21:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

giving reasons is an apparent justification. If that justification is not correct then the action was not correct. You're trying to have it both ways. You are trying to argue both that (a) the conclusion is dependent on the reasons (your response to me in the quote), or (b) the conclusion is independent of the reasons (my supposed "chasm of logic").
I thought you brought up Bergman , but its not an interesting discussion so I didnt pay much attention to it. So it's only interesting whey I seemingly make logical errors, not when Sterile says things that are clearly false? I'm not sure how that shows that you are unbiased.
Since you ask it was apparently you (PJR) that raised Bergman in a citation which is bad practice. No, I didn't ask about that. I asked about who brought up Bergman in the discussion above. Sterile has moved some of the conversation off this page, but in my post of 15:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC) (and earlier) I document Sterile's mention of Bergman and then his subsequent claim that he had not discussed him! Is my documentation accurate, or not? Was Sterile in fact the one who first raised Bergman in that discussion in the last few days (as opposed to the discussion on the Homosexuality talk page in January last year)? Doesn't he then deny that he raised Bergman in that discussion?
Quoting A quoting B when you could just quote B is bad practice. A claim that I previously answered on the Homosexuality talk page.
You then chastise Sterile for trying to keep reasonable standards by pointing out that "it's my wiki"… No, I questioned why he thought he had the right to decide what's acceptable on this Wiki.
…yet when I said that you objected. No, you didn't say that I had the right to decide standards. You used the "its your wiki" response as an excuse for not addressing my argument. That's a different thing entirely.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Response to the above

Um, from November 19 until May 26 I did not edit this wiki. Your “mini-essay” would seem to indicate that you realize that. Then you made some oblique reference to “critics” that “discouraged the genuine contributors,” after which I suggested that you “block whomever you think is the problem and move on,” after which you blocked me, with no discussion at all, with some sort of contrivance that I had asked to be blocked. None of the wikis I have been involved in who have any sort of blocking policy has ever not given notice that the block was coming, given a reason, and written it on the user page. Certainly Awc is correct that this block is not part of the “guidelines”. Awc, who you consider to be the fairest of your contributors cited administrative abuse.

Then you wrote your mini-essay, and called me “a serial troublemaker.” A serial trouble maker who hasn’t written a thing on your wiki for 6 months? Really? You claim to have “documented” unsubstantiated claims, even though claims are defined as “an assertion of something as a fact” [1], even though I still have no list of these claims. After all, assertions of facts are still not questions. This you later admit (Sterile: “Again, your asking questions does not mean I made unsubstantiated claims.” PJR: “I never said that it did.”) and then later equivocate as if that has some meaning (“My lists of unanswered questions amounts to lists of unsubstantiated (and unjustified) claims.”) I have no idea why you say in one case you say you never said it did and then you say it amounts to it, or what the substantive difference is.

And then, as an example you brought up the Wikipedia reference from January 2014, a full year and half earlier. The Wikipedia reference is under the heading “Citation problems, again” which starts with the word “Bergman.” I had said, “Further, I don't know anyone who seriously considers blogs as good sources.” To which you wrote, “Wikipedia does.” To which I cited the entire policy, which starts “In most cases, no.” ‘’That within itself for someone who isn’t trying to go out of his way to be a jerk would be enough. The exception appropriate to this context is “well-known professional researchers writing within their field.” Very, very few blogs do this. Bergman to the best of my knowledge has performed no research in the field of sociobiology, and hence does not qualify as a “researcher” let alone a “well-known professional researcher writing within their field.” Which is providing justification as to why Bergman’s work should not be cited. Obviously. No need for me to say anything more.

The question which supposedly is asking for clarification or substantiation that you brought up this month for reasons mysterious is “It's truly bizarre, too, that I give you Wikipedia's language and then proceed to deny it, but it pretty much shows your inability to argue this point.” To which you asked, “Pardon? What did I deny?” You pretty clearly denied (and deny) that Wikipedia considers blogs as poor sources for the most part, which the language, “In most cases, no,” would imply for someone who has a grasp of the English language would understand. They would also understand that the whole section is on Bergman, and that it can’t be excised from the conversation, and that if I’m explaining how the Wikipedia policy is germane to the subject at hand I have to provide the context.

What this has to do with anything I do not know. By your own admission, this “question” is not one of substantiation (“this wasn't a question asking for substantiation”), which is (apparently) used as a justification for your character attack of my being a troublemaker. Not only is it “technically” a question not asking for substantiation, yet another equivocation to pretend that you’ve actually justified something, but also it isn’t a question asking for substantiation, especially since I had already done it. I have no idea why you say I have an “onus to answer” other than you say so. If you wish to generalize from a representative example, then it requires an actual representative example. That you cannot provide one is not my fault.

More to the point, if you are going to go after editors at your site and write 12.4 K of text in response to my 6.5 K, then perhaps you want to have the conversation at the time it is actually happening, since it certainly gives the impression that you are harassing someone. Especially when you wish to bring up things that happened a year and a half ago for which the punishment was meted out already (under the pretext of “trolling”), not interact with them for 6 months (actually, longer, since we didn’t interact much about the global warming stuff), and then block them with no discussion and call them a serial troublemaker, it is clear that you are being a harasser. If you hadn’t noticed, we all go away when everyone ignores each other (that’s happened twice), and when you do acknowledge everyone, it always ends up with your escalating things (and in this case, about ancient history). And that, my friend, is why no one wants to come here. You’ve made an environment in which you assume bad faith and you are downright nasty to everyone you disagree with.

Unless you have something productive, forward-thinking and not demeaning to write, please do not respond. I will delete it. Sterileserial troublemaker 21:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

First, thanks for attempting a comprehensive response. It's clarified where you are coming from, which allows me to make a specific, constructive, response.
Um, from November 19 until May 26 I did not edit this wiki. Your “mini-essay” would seem to indicate that you realize that. Then you made some oblique reference to “critics” that “discouraged the genuine contributors… All true, except that you omitted the context that this was in response to a question about why things were so quiet here. I didn't just make that comment about critics out of the blue.
…after which I suggested that you “block whomever you think is the problem and move on,” after which you blocked me, with no discussion at all… That seemed to be what you were suggesting. In fact (you've "quote mined yourself!), you said just block whomever I think is the problem. Nothing about having a discussion first, nothing about giving the warning. You also said (another bit you didn't quote): We will support you in that. So I took you at your word, and just blocked someone I thought was part of the problem. I see I didn't get the support you promised.
…with some sort of contrivance that I had asked to be blocked. Well, you did say …whomever you think is the problem…, and you fitted that category, so I don't see how that's a contrivance at all. I did exactly what you said (except that I didn't block others).
None of the wikis I have been involved in who have any sort of blocking policy has ever not given notice that the block was coming, given a reason, and written it on the user page. I don't believe it. I've seen cases where someone has asked to be blocked, and no notice was given that the asked-for block was coming. And in case you object that you didn't ask for it, I'll point out that, in my mind, as explained above, you did. And if you hadn't, I wouldn't have, as I didn't block anyone else. In other words, your implication that this is something odd about this Wiki as opposed to just a special circumstance is wrong.
Awc, who you consider to be the fairest of your contributors cited administrative abuse. He did, but as I pointed out, it can hardly be called abuse of a person to act on that person's suggestion.
Then you wrote your mini-essay, and called me “a serial troublemaker.” A serial trouble maker who hasn’t written a thing on your wiki for 6 months? Really? Okay, a serial troublemaker when you were writing things. I think that's implicit.
You claim to have “documented” unsubstantiated claims, even though claims are defined as “an assertion of something as a fact” [2], even though I still have no list of these claims. You're splitting hairs. As I later said, the lists of questions amount to lists of unsubstantiated claims.
After all, assertions of facts are still not questions. This you later admit (Sterile: “Again, your asking questions does not mean I made unsubstantiated claims.” PJR: “I never said that it did.”) I was not admitting that assertions of facts are not questions. I was agreeing that not all questions are necessarily an indication of unsubstantiated claims.
…and then later equivocate as if that has some meaning (“My lists of unanswered questions amounts to lists of unsubstantiated (and unjustified) claims.”) I have no idea why you say in one case you say you never said it did and then you say it amounts to it, or what the substantive difference is. I didn't equivocate. I didn't say A then not-A. I said B then not-A, and you misunderstood my B as an A.
And then, as an example you brought up the Wikipedia reference from January 2014, a full year and half earlier. Specifically, I brought up your claim that I denied something about the Wikipedia reference, and your refusal to justify your claim of my denial by clarifying what precisely I had denied.
The Wikipedia reference is under the heading “Citation problems, again” which starts with the word “Bergman.”… Yes, it is under that heading, but it's well down the discussion and not related.
I had said, “Further, I don't know anyone who seriously considers blogs as good sources.”… You subsequently said, but yes, otherwise that is correct. However, you've missed a crucial point. In your opening post, you objected to several sources, including Bergman and a couple of blogs. But the Bergman source was not a blog. The discussion about blogs had nothing to do with Bergman.
You pretty clearly denied (and deny) that Wikipedia considers blogs as poor sources for the most part, which the language,… Here you are wrong. It is not clear at all. After you said Not really, I replied by saying So you admit that Wikipedia does find it acceptable in some circumstances? Good. So does that mean that you withdraw your absolute statement about them not being acceptable? This makes it absolutely clear that I understood that Wikipedia only finds them acceptable at times, and that I was disputing your absolutist claim. Yet it was after I made that comment that you claimed I was denying (in your words now) that Wikipedia considers blogs as poor sources for the most part.
They would also understand that the whole section is on Bergman, and that it can’t be excised from the conversation, and that if I’m explaining how the Wikipedia policy is germane to the subject at hand I have to provide the context. Except that the discussion of the blogs had nothing to do with Bergman, as I have pointed out above.
By your own admission, this “question” is not one of substantiation (“this wasn't a question asking for substantiation”),… 'Quote mining' again. I actually said So technically, this wasn't a question asking for substantiation, but… and proceeded to explain why it still amounted to one.
…which is (apparently) used as a justification for your character attack of my being a troublemaker. You're jumping from an example to the conclusion whilst omitting the connections. It was an example of your practice of making numerous claims that you don't justify. You made an accusation about me blatantly denying something, but failed to justify the accusation because you failed to even clarify just what I was supposed to have denied.
…also it isn’t a question asking for substantiation, especially since I had already done it. You had not justified the accusation that I had denied something, because you weren't clear just what I had supposedly denied. Now that you have answered the question and clarified, I have an opportunity to point out that you are wrong. I didn't deny what you claimed I denied, and in fact I explicitly acknowledged what you claimed I had denied. So your accusation was false, but because you refused to answer the question, I was not able to refute the accusation. Making unfounded accusations and refusing to justify them justifies the claim of trouble-making.
I have no idea why you say I have an “onus to answer” other than you say so. Simply because the person making the claim has the onus to justify the claim. Which I'm sure you'd agree with if it was me making the claim and refusing to justify it.
If you wish to generalize from a representative example, then it requires an actual representative example. Which this was.
More to the point, if you are going to go after editors at your site and write 12.4 K of text in response to my 6.5 K,… If a person makes brief, unsubstantiated claims, and another person responds with a comprehensive, substantiated rebuttal, it's naturally going to take more words. The fault lies with the person not explaining themselves properly, not the one who takes more words to respond properly.
…then perhaps you want to have the conversation at the time it is actually happening,… Which I tried doing, but you refused to answer the questions asking for justification of your claims. And in fact that is part of the problem now. You've confused yourself by conflating the issues about Bergman and citing blogs, which likely wouldn't have happened if you'd answered the questions when asked.
Especially when you wish to bring up things that happened a year and a half ago… You asked why I considered you a trouble maker. Given that you hadn't posted for a while, I could hardly bring up recent stuff, could I?
…under the pretext of “trolling”… There you go again with the accusations. It was no pretext.
If you hadn’t noticed, we all go away when everyone ignores each other (that’s happened twice), As I pointed out in my "mini essay", you had gone away, then when I came back and posted articles which you had no issue with, and I didn't touch any of the articles we had debated on, you also returned and started changing articles I had not touched in ages. So it's not a case of ignoring each other, unless you mean that I should ignore changes that you make that I have an issue with.
…it always ends up with your escalating things (and in this case, about ancient history). As I have pointed out, if I'm asked to justify something that involves history, I have little choice but to bring up history.
You’ve made an environment in which you assume bad faith and you are downright nasty to everyone you disagree with. There you go with yet another accusation about me. No, I do not assume bad faith. Take RolandPlankton for example. I have not assumed bad faith with him. I assume good faith until I have reason to think otherwise. And no, I'm not nasty with everyone I disagree with. I have disagreed with others here, but they have remained polite with me and I've remained polite with them. It's the ones who make accusations about me, make claims that they refuse to justify, insist on changing articles in a way that is opposed to the worldview of this site, etc. that show that they have bad faith.
Unless you have something productive, forward-thinking and not demeaning to write, please do not respond. I will delete it. If you delete my response to your attempt at justifying myself whilst leaving your attempted justification here, it is deceptive because it makes it look like I haven't responded, when I have.
In this response to you, I've made a number of accusation. I've accused you, for example, of making accusations about me (and I haven't mentioned the accusation of me hating that you put in the section above; what was that about assuming bad faith?). I think it's blatantly obvious that you have (whether they are justified or not, you have made accusations). I've also made accusations about you confusing Bergman with the blog issue. You are of course welcome to refute me (not slag off at me) if you believe that I am wrong. And perhaps you'll see my response as not productive, forward-thinking and not demeaning, but I believe that everything I've said above is reasoned and justifiable.
One other thing before I finish. I understand now that you felt you had to raise Bergman in the context of the Wikipedia blog-source issue, but that doesn't explain why you subsequently denied doing so.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there is still not an active complaint against me. I have no list of claims to justify, and without it "serial" is suspect. I even question the assumption that, if we accept as true that I make unsubstantiated claims, that that makes me a troublemaker. (Maybe I'm just a dolt, for example.) And I fail to see how discussing citation standards makes me a troll, especially since I think ethics are a part of your worldview. I also asked you to substantiate, "removing things he doesn't like or reverting my edits." You've not listed a single problematic reversion. This accusation has been made at least three times now including over a year ago.
As far as I can tell, you are OK with the wording of homosexuality and its references. There is simply no value to this conversation except for your continued administrative abuse. If I'm not a productive editor, then it's because I have to spent too much time trying to figure out what the hell I'm supposed to be justifying and where the actual evidence against me is. That's really distracting.
I ask you again to please stop harassing me. Sterileserial troublemaker 23:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there is still not an active complaint against me. I have no list of claims to justify, and without it "serial" is suspect. This despite me documenting that the lists exist.
I repeat, a claim is a declarative statement. You have not provided any list of declarative statements. Therefore, you did not provide any list of claims. Further, your insistence for one editor doing this over others is demonstrative of your bullying. Sterileserial troublemaker 14:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I even question the assumption that, if we accept as true that I make unsubstantiated claims, that that makes me a troublemaker. I have never claimed that. It's not the making of unsubstantiated claims that is the issue, but your repeated failure to substantiate them when asked to. If you claim that the sky is blue and evolution occurred, that's two unsubstantiated claims (that is, two claims that you made with accompanying substantiation), and I'm not going to ask you to substantiate the first, because I accept it as true. The second I would, however, because I don't believe it to be true, and I want to see your evidence. We all make unsubstantiated claims all the time, but for the most part, they don't need to be substantiated because the reader accepts them as true.
The statement I responded to is, "Sterile is a serial troublemaker, making frequent criticisms, but frequently refusing to substantiate his claims, as I've documented numerous times." The statement "frequently refusing to substantiate his claims" is supporting "is a serial troublemaker," or at least you seem to indicate that it does. If you claim is now includes, "when asked to", then you have indeed moved the goalposts in your continued harassment, since it is unclear under what obligation I have to respond, especially since I'm not aware of any threats of blocking against me nor in the context of any content dispute. This is nothing but an extended character attack which, apparently, you prioritize since you respond to it before anything else. Sterileserial troublemaker 14:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
And I fail to see how discussing citation standards makes me a troll,… Again, I never said that it did.
I also asked you to substantiate, "removing things he doesn't like or reverting my edits." You've not listed a single problematic reversion. You are subtly moving the goal posts. In fact, you didn't directly ask that question. You quoted me saying that, and asked Where have I removed something I don't like? Unlike you so often, I answered that question (Pretty-well wherever you have reverted stuff I've added.) Until now, you've made no further reference to that, implying that my answer was acceptable (in the sense that it did answer the question). Yet here you are now implying that I didn't answer your question, by (correctly) saying that I didn't provide example, when you never asked for examples.
Huh? How is, "Where have I removed something I don't like?" not directly asking the question? Do you wish to lob accusations without evidence for all your editors or just the ones you are harassing? Do you really think it OK to do that? Sterileserial troublemaker 14:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
But to pick an example (the first one I found; not necessarily the best): you removed an entire, referenced, section of an article. You did provide a reason, but it was specious and certainly didn't fit your justificaiton of I usually remove inaccurate or poorly sourced information.
To elaborate, the section documented claims by climate alarmists that their critics are paid to criticise. The section further documented that some companies had paid some critics. However, it also made two further points:
  • That the alarmists had not actually shown that the paid criticism was invalid.
  • That the alarmists themselves were also receiving income that could, potentially, influence their stated views.
Your justification for removing the entire, documented (and therefore well-sourced and presumably accurate) section was that there was something that it didn't say (but you failed to explain why that was relevent when I asked), and said that you were "not sure" what monetary influence of alarmists had to do with claims that monetary influence of critics was a problem.
So the reasonable conclusion I drew—given your lack of other justification—was that you simply didn't like your side's hypocrisy being pointed out.
My statement was, "I usually remove inaccurate or poorly sourced information." The word "usually" means to most people that not every example is going to be valid. You are grasping as straws to be abusive. I don't really understand the rest of what you say here and you, like I, dropped the conversation. My supposedly specious reason is, "it provides no analysis of global warming supporters showing that oil companies were or were not influencing scientific results or were or were not misleading the public". Where is the support of that statement, which seems to be the overall criticism about the alarmists that was in the article? Further, what does this have to with alarmism? That is, how is this an analysis of claims people have made that were overstated or unfounded about climate alarmism? But yet again, we get off track. Why not just have the conversation over there? Just because you disagree with a statement doesn't make it specious. Sterileserial troublemaker 14:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
There is simply no value to this conversation except for your continued administrative abuse. Except to point out that your claims of "administrative abuse" are baseless. I think there is much value in that.
If I'm not a productive editor, then it's because I have to spent too much time trying to figure out what the hell I'm supposed to be justifying and where the actual evidence against me is. That's really distracting. Given that I frequently ask you to justify claims that you've made and shown you actual evidence, that claim is nonsense.
How long did I just spend responding to you when I could be working on content? Sterileserial troublemaker 14:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I ask you again to please stop harassing me. It's not harrassment, and if you think you are so innocent, why do you create and put distortions like File:PJR-arguments.png on your user page? I would consider that harrassment of me.
Perhaps my argument map is poorly worded, but the premise of this site would seem to be that your don't agree with the worldview of other sites, and that you wish to impose yours upon this one. You frequently use worldview as an argument to dismiss others, and your corrections to improve the argument map would seem to suggest that. (There is no semantic difference between "my worldview" and "a biblical worldview"; your worldview is what you define as a biblical worldview.) I don't really see why this is harassment if you factually do this over and over again. Are you or are you not uncomfortable dismissing arguments based on worldview? Further, if you attack someone's character, how do you expect them to respond? Sterileserial troublemaker 14:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, I see no purpose to this back-and-forth other than your wishing to attack my character. It is certainly not about content, and you have only tangentially threated to block me in your role as an administrator. That indicates there is no basis for your bringing this up, unless the threat is real. But how could it be? The point of this conversation is why the site was largely inactive for months. You seem to only with to lob accusations against me and prioritize it over other interactions on the site. Further, I don't believe you are upset about the current state of the Bergman quote and you didn't revert climate alarmism like you said you would. I'm not sure what the problem is then. Sterileserial troublemaker 14:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I repeat, a claim is a declarative statement. You have not provided any list of declarative statements. Therefore, you did not provide any list of claims. If you can't understand that a question about a declarative statement indicates which declarative statement I'm asking you to justify, then you're being obstinate.
Further, your insistence for one editor doing this over others is demonstrative of your bullying. I don't insist on this only from you. But you tend to make more such claims than others.
The statement "frequently refusing to substantiate his claims" is supporting "is a serial troublemaker," or at least you seem to indicate that it does. If you claim is now includes, "when asked to", then you have indeed moved the goalposts… No, I've not moved the goalposts. The statement that supports "is a serial troublemaker," is "making frequent criticisms, but frequently refusing to substantiate his claims". A refusal implies a denied request, i.e. I asked you to, and you refused.
…it is unclear under what obligation I have to respond… Despite me pointing it out: If you make a claim that you are asked to substantiate, you have an obligation to substantiate it.
This is nothing but an extended character attack which, apparently, you prioritize since you respond to it before anything else. No, it's not an extended character attack. Rather, your criticisms of me constitute that.
Huh? How is, "Where have I removed something I don't like?" not directly asking the question? Directly asking which question? I agree that that is a direct question. It's a direct question that I answered. What I claimed you hadn't asked was for examples.
Do you wish to lob accusations without evidence for all your editors or just the ones you are harassing? Do you really think it OK to do that? Further generalised accusations against me rather than sticking with the point under discussion. This constitutes a character attack.
My statement was, "I usually remove inaccurate or poorly sourced information." The word "usually" means to most people that not every example is going to be valid. Duh! This statement is, of course, quite correct. But is not particularly relevant. The conversation went like this (relevant points bolded):
  • Me: "He contributes almost nothing to articles other than removing things he doesn't like or reverting my edits."
  • You: "Where have I removed something I don't like? … I usually remove inaccurate or poorly sourced information."
  • Me: "Given that I provide lots of sources and am careful to be accurate, I reject this claim."
  • You: "I also asked you to substantiate, "removing things he doesn't like or reverting my edits." You've not listed a single problematic reversion."
  • Me: "But to pick an example (the first one I found; not necessarily the best): you removed an entire, referenced, section of an article. You did provide a reason, but it was specious and certainly didn't fit your justification of I usually remove inaccurate or poorly sourced information."
  • You: "The word "usually" means to most people that not every example is going to be valid. You are grasping as straws to be abusive. "
See what you've done? You've tried to evade my accusation of removing stuff, by claiming that you don't usually, and when I give an example because you claimed that I hadn't, you wave it away because you said that you don't usually. So that apparently makes it okay. You can accuse me of not providing an example, then dismiss it when I do. So why accuse me?
My supposedly specious reason is, "it provides no analysis of global warming supporters showing that oil companies were or were not influencing scientific results or were or were not misleading the public". Where is the support of that statement, which seems to be the overall criticism about the alarmists that was in the article? I'll spell it out:
  • AGW critics are sometimes in the pay of oil companies.
  • Alarmists claim that this makes their criticisms tainted. There was no indication that alarmists have shown that the money has influenced the critics' claims. The fact of taking the money was enough.
  • Alarmists are sometimes in the pay of alternative energy companies, or even oil companies.
  • You removed the entire, referenced (nine references), section, on the excuse that there was no indication that the critics have shown that the money has influenced the alarmists' claims.
  • That is, the section was about the hypocrisy of the alarmists doing what they accuse the critics of doing (getting paid by companies that would benefit), and you remove it on the grounds that the critics have not shown that the alarmists were doing anything wrong, even though that wasn't why the section was there.
Further, what does this have to with alarmism? The alarmists are hypocrites, so have a credibility problem. That should be obvious.
That is, how is this an analysis of claims people have made that were overstated or unfounded about climate alarmism? Again, obvious. Alarmists were attempting to shore up their alarmist claims by undermining the claims of the critics.
But yet again, we get off track. Why not just have the conversation over there? Again obvious. We were having it there, but it also arose on your talk page.
Just because you disagree with a statement doesn't make it specious. Of course not. You are very good at stating the obvious in order to appear like you've got something useful to say, instead of just addressing the point.
How long did I just spend responding to you when I could be working on content? Probably nowhere near as long as I've spent responding to you many times when you are making numerous claims that you refuse to substantiate.
…the premise of this site would seem to be that your don't agree with the worldview of other sites, and that you wish to impose yours upon this one. Again, this constitutes an attack on me. I can't be accused of "imposing" my worldview on my site! You seem to be working on the premise that you have a right to impose your views on my site.
You frequently use worldview as an argument to dismiss others,… I don't "dismiss"; I make an argument.
…and your corrections to improve the argument map would seem to suggest that. (There is no semantic difference between "my worldview" and "a biblical worldview"; your worldview is what you define as a biblical worldview.)… On the contrary (as I clearly pointed out), although the two (hopefully) align, there is definitely a difference in the meaning.
I don't really see why this is harassment if you factually do this over and over again. I don't do what you claimed. Ergo, given that it was directed at mocking me, it was an example of harassment.
Are you or are you not uncomfortable dismissing arguments based on worldview? That question is ambiguous, and that ambiguity points, I believe, to the fundamental way that you differ from me. Does it mean...
  • Are you or are you not uncomfortable dismissing arguments, with that dismissal being based on a worldview?
  • Are you or are you not uncomfortable dismissing arguments that are based on a worldview?
I do not dismiss arguments simply because of my worldview. However, I will reject arguments where the argument is based on a worldview that I don't agree with. And you do this too. If I said that homosexuality is wrong because God created us heterosexual, you would dismiss that on the grounds that you don't believe that God did that (perhaps because you don't believe God created, or God exists). That is, you are "dismissing" my argument because you don't agree with my worldview. You would be doing no different to me, except that you might not use the term "worldview" to explain what you are doing.
Again, I see no purpose to this back-and-forth other than your wishing to attack my character. Except perhaps to justify my claim that you are a troublemaker? No, that couldn't be it, because, well, that would mean that I do have a purpose.
It is certainly not about content,… It's about you being a troublemaker, mocking and falsely criticising me, instead of creating content, and removing, changing, and/or disputing content without justifying yourself. So really, it is ultimately about content.
That indicates there is no basis for your bringing this up,… Except to answer someone's question. I did not bring it up out of the blue, but because I was asked to explain something.
The point of this conversation is why the site was largely inactive for months. So, you do realise the purpose!
You seem to only with to lob accusations against me and prioritize it over other interactions on the site. First, any appearance of that being the priority is not due to it actually being my priority; one factor is what issue is the most easily and quickly answered. Second, my priority was to add content, and the subject of you only came up with a "new" user (who turned out to be a banned user) asked a question. Clearly, criticising you was not my priority.
Further, I don't believe you are upset about the current state of the Bergman quote and you didn't revert climate alarmism like you said you would. Again, it was you who re-raised the issue of the Bergman quote, not me. I was happy to leave that one, because, as you said, I am happy with the current state. As for the climate alarmism article, (a) I did revert the particular edit where you removed that section discussed above (but perhaps you are talking about a later edit?), and (b) when I resumed editing, my priority (as I explained above) was to avoid getting into arguments and concentrate on content that would not be argued, but others (you being just one) decided to get back into the disputed articles. It doesn't mean that I'm happy with the climate alarmism article (or various other articles for that matter).
I'm not sure what the problem is then. After all this? To summarise...
  1. I was asked why something was the case.
  2. I gave an answer.
  3. You disputed my answer.
  4. I answered your objection.
  5. Continue from step 3.
So how do we stop this? I could simply decline to answer your objections, or you could decline to dispute my answers. That you paint this as me (and not you) continuing this speaks to your desire to malign me.
I don't dispute, in principle, that you have a right to defend yourself. But I do dispute your approach of making lots of claims (both content-related and about me personally), failing to justify those claims when asked to, then repeating those steps over and over.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of responding to this without some saber rattling threat. Even then, maybe not. Good day. Sterileserial troublemaker 02:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's very little if anything in there that I require a response to, so I guess that's your choice. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

articles for deletion

I've just come across an article which I can't see any excuse for: KillingsworthHarman110

And another article whose name seems to bear little relation to its content: Qila2e3

Should we have recipes here: Snickerdoodles

RolandPlankton (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
yes we should have a snickerdoodle recipe here. Its a tasty treat. Hamster (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I've deleted the first two you mentioned. Thanks. I don't see any justification for having recipes. The article itself shouldn't be a problem, and it could have a link to a recipe, but I can't see why this encyclopædia should have a recipe. Unless it is a recipe for cooking hamsters, perhaps? :-) Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 09:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
If its an encyclopedia it should be encyclopedic dont you think ? Hamster (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yet another article which is ripe for removal: DedrickLazenby405

And a completely empty article: Elvis Presley phenomenon

And a very strange article (spam?): ArceFrantz867

RolandPlankton (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I deleted all three, then changed my mind on the second one and made it a redirect instead. And yes, the last was a spam one that was obviously missed at the time that we were getting a lot of them (that's why you had to join with an % in your username). Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

categories for deletion

I've tidied up the various categories related to computers, and have finished up with two unused categories. Could you please delete these:

category: computer programming
category: computers
RolandPlankton (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Done. If I recall user rights correctly, you now have the ability to delete pages (with very few edits) yourself. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You are incorrect. A Member cannot delete. Sterileserial troublemaker 17:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
obvious solution, make the Plankton a Senior Member ! he has been a member for a while without abusing that power. what could go wrong ? Hamster (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

same sex marriage - edit reason

" these laws prohibited the solemnization of weddings between persons of different races and prohibited the officiating of such ceremonies. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States Are you saying thats wrong ? Hamster (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I wasn't talking about the laws themselves, but the opposition to them, of which the WP article you linked to has very little if anything to say. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyway

It appears to be just us and Roland who doesn't seem to want me to interact with him, so I guess it's time for a break. Sterileserial troublemaker 01:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

After somewhat unpleasant experience on Conservapedia trying to reason with folk who wouldn't consider facts, I've decided to keep as far away as possible from discussions regarding theology, creationism, ID, literal interpretation of the Bible, and the like. Since I'm intending to improve coverage of science, technology, and mathematics, it is likely that such discussions will ensue for the the first two of these topics, but I'm trying to put it off for a while.
It sometimes seems to me that an awful lot of effort is going into discussions on talk pages, with relatively little effort going into article creation and improvement.
RolandPlankton (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't mean it to be a criticism. I do think the conversations start out as rooted in the actual articles, but often go astray. I would give examples, but I'll probably get yelled it. I think you get a sense of it, however, from what happens to dates further back than 4000 BC. Sterileserial troublemaker 18:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies

Just in case the recent vandalism was anything to do with RW (can't be sure of anything on t'net - especially identity) I'd like to apologise for the crassness. %Roger (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It did appear to have something to do with RW, but I would not have assumed that the RW management would have been behind it nor endorsed it. Perhaps just a newer RW member doing his own thing? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
It ain't none of me either, but I almost feel the need to apologize in the name of all rational opponents of creationism. I will fight tooth and nail for the truth, but only by fair and open means. Anything else is both wrong and counterproductive. Vandalism doesn't help anybody. —Awc 10:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. And I should note with thanks, despite all the issues I have with Sterile, that he blocked the latest vandal. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
He was almost 2 hours gone by the time I got there. Wiki vandalism accomplishes nothing. It takes no longer to reverse than to vandalize, and there are extensions for which lots of edits can be reversed in seconds. Rhetorically, it looks worse for the vandal than anyone else. Sterileserial troublemaker 11:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent Vandals

Glad to see you did fix the vandalism. When I got no response to my email I thought you might be out of action. LowKey (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools
visitor navigation