User talk:Philip J. Rayment

From A Storehouse of Knowledge

Revision as of 02:32, 6 May 2009

Archive 1 (18 April 2009)

Opinion, please?

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

Do you mean that you read just these, or have you read these also? What did you think of it/them?

I have read both, although some time ago now. I thoroughly recommend them.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the same topic, but would recommend these also:

• Refuting Compromise. This is different in that it's not talking so much about the evolutionary claims as about compromise positions that various Christians have. It's not available online like the others, but you can get a taste of it here.
• The Creation Answers Book. Again, not like Refuting and Refuting 2, in that it's not directly looking at evolutionary claims. Rather, it's providing answers to questions people often ask about creation, the flood, Genesis, etc. This one is available online here.
• One Blood: The biblical answer to racism. This is a bit different again, but I mention it mainly because it's online.
• Creation. You can't go past this magazine, and most of the back issues more than a year old are online.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 06:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read both of them! Other than CP and CreationWiki, it was really my first time diving into the topic of YEC. I feel that he does make some substantial points, though I also feel that he shoots himself in the foot at times (don't have any specific citations at the moment). For example, I feel that the explanation of the uses of venom/toxins before the fall in Refuting Evolution 2 was rather weak, in that it (a.) has some "substantial uses" in small doses, and (b.) the Christian God foresaw the Fall and implanted (designed?) the information for such structures to be implemented post-Fall. I like that it tries to turn away readers from the commonly-misheld idea that Creationists don't believe in any biological/genetic change over time; he spends a lot of time stating that speciation and diversification are necessary tools, but what YEC does not uphold is the gaining of information from those changes.

Turns out that my late grandfather was a YEC "fanatic" and has an entire bookshelf dedicated to YEC literature! I picked up Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, as well as The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris. They seem to be a bit more advanced, but they also seem to be older publications. If anything, they make for a very interesting read, even though I'm skeptical of the message they're trying to convey. Always good to take a closer look at opposing viewpoints, I suppose! Thanks for the time.

Jeff W. Lauttamus^Discussion 16:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never read Of Pandas and People, but I guess that it would be getting old by now, although not as old as The Genesis Flood. Dean Kenyon is a scientist who was well known, having co-authored one of the classic textbooks on evolution, before becoming a creationist on the strength of the scientific arguments.

'The Genesis Flood would, I guess, be heavy reading. It was my first creationist book, which I read when I was in my mid to late teens. It is the book that got the modern creationist movement started (your grandfather's copy wouldn't be a first edition, would it?) back in the early 1960s. Some of the ideas in it are somewhat dated now though, such as the idea of a vapour canopy, which is no longer widely held, so it's perhaps more of historical interest than anything else.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 23:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, some still argue for the existence of a vapor (spelled the right way :P)canopy, though also concede that it couldn't be solely responsible for the biblical flood. I'm having a lot of trouble getting through Of Pandas and People, though.

Jeff W. Lauttamus^Discussion 23:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that anybody ever claimed that the vapour (US: vapor) canopy was solely responsible for the flood.

Creationists (like evolutionists) cover a wide range of knowledge and expertise, from scientists who work for the major creationists organisations (CMI, ICR, AiG, etc.) to Christians who heard a talk by a creationist and who now think they know everything about the subject, but who don't keep up on the latest thinking. In between are some "lone wolf" creationists who run creationist organisations or museums but who do not submit themselves to the wise counsel of other creationists, and who hold some ideas since discarded by "mainstream" creationism or which were never held by mainstream creationism. So you have plenty of creationists towards the "heard a talk" end of the scale, and even some "lone wolf" creationists who still promote the vapour canopy theory, and perhaps even some of the older creationists who find it hard to change long-held views (I believe I heard that the late Henry Morris never gave up the vapour canopy idea), but "mainstream" creationism has long dropped the idea. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 00:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Moar Guard Dog

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

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

Chess Pages

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

For example

Sample Puzzle

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

See if you can solve it! The Emperor^{Rise, my apprentice} 00:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(I've removed unneeded blank lines from your post.)

Sorry, but you must be using a character set which my computer doesn't have; all I'm getting is black vertical bars where you have pieces.

Wikipedia, including non-English versions, have faced this problem before, and after much discussion and voting, they came up with a template to be used on all Wikipedias (English and other).

I suggest that you read up on what they've done, and see if it's practicable to use their solution here. I did notice a reference to SVG images (but that may not have been the final outcome), which we've not yet got the availability to use here, but hopefully we will have before too long.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 02:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In passing, the table & characters look OK to me. User 11^{speak to me} 08:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Below is what I see - hope this helps! Taj 06:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

No, it's not (just) the browser. I think I was using Opera on the computer I couldn't see the characters on, and it works in IE 7 on this computer. (Actually, it may have been IE 6 on the other computer.) Philip J. Rayment^discuss 16:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see them on firefox, here or at RW. It definitely looks like a "missing" font, grabbing the font would be fine for two people who want to illustrate a game they are playing, but not OK for general 'cyclopedia usage. Images should be fine though, especially since "white" could be "red", clearly distinguishing the two players' pieces. ħuman ^{Number 19} 18:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Membership Nomination for Pi.

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

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

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

(SQL query hidden)

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

When trying to edit Pi's talk page. (The edit worked though) User 11^{speak to me} 08:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this error message does have something to do with it. It's not just a category problem; This page doesn't list Pi's page either. I've been trying to find the solution, and I've found a lot of stuff that's over my head, but nothing that I understand sufficiently yet. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 13:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you rename me either Pi or 3.14159? Π 04:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be another way out of the problem, although I suspect that the problem's going to recur somewhere sometime. I don't think I've installed the extension for renaming accounts yet, but I fully intended to, so this will be a good time to do it. Which of those names would you prefer? Philip J. Rayment^discuss 05:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Pi is what most people call me. Π 05:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean people don't go around calling you three point one four one five nine? I wonder why?

It turns out that I had installed the required extension, so this should only take a moment...

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 05:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Even as 3.14159 most people called me Pi. Pi 05:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. It seems that the same database query error caused the process to bomb before moving your talk page, but I've now moved that separately. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 05:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Weird. Maybe there was something wrong with the page rather than my name (although it probably didn't help matters). π 05:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit weird, but I think it was the name. After telling you that I'd have it done in a moment, I started wondering if the character set/database query problem would actually prevent the renaming from working. And when I did the renaming operation, I got the error message, and had to look at Recent Changes to see if it had worked. The user page move had worked, and the rename itself had worked, but not the move of the user talk page. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 06:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a problem with Semantic MediaWiki. A little googling gave this. Nx 10:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the pages I found, but exactly what I have to do to solve it I'm not clear on. I apparently have to change some character set settings in the database, but exactly which ones and what I need to change them to is not clear. I'm not actually sure how to change them either, but I could probably figure that out once I know what I have to change.

Would it help if I posted a picture of what the current database tables are set to?

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 12:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've installed SMW on my local MW and recreated the problem. I'll get back to you once I fix it. Nx 13:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Troubleshooting

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

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

show create table wikidb.twsmw_ids;

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

These just report what's there without making changes, correct? And I'm unclear on what I'm supposed to do with "tw".

While I'm waiting for those answers, I'll mention that most tables have the collation set to "binary", whilst some, mostly SMW ones, have it set to "latin1_swedish_ci".

See also here.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 14:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

These are just reports, yes. tw is the wiki table prefix ($wgDBPrefix), it's tw because I call my home wiki testwiki. I don't know what those scripts you linked to do, but I suspect those are for problems related to upgrading/migrating (like the bugreport I linked to), so I doubt they'll fix anything. Nx 14:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not having much luck. I'm trying to run the first command from within a "Run SQL query" box within phpMyAdmin. Is that right? phpMyAdmin shows two databases, one with the last part of the name being "_media", with 49 tables, and the other having the last part of the name "_schema", and which has 17 tables. The error message is "#1146 - Table '<db name>.tables' doesn't exist". Philip J. Rayment^discuss 15:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add the database name for the first command, fixed now. The first database (with 49 tables) is the wiki database ($wgDBname in LocalSettings.php), right? That's wikidb in my case (the default). Nx 15:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully these are what you need:

table_schema 	table_name 	table_collation 
<dbname> 	archive	binary
<dbname> 	category	binary
<dbname> 	categorylinks	binary
<dbname> 	externallinks	binary
<dbname> 	filearchive	binary
<dbname> 	hitcounter	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	image	binary
<dbname> 	imagelinks	binary
<dbname> 	interwiki	binary
<dbname> 	ipblocks	binary
<dbname> 	job	binary
<dbname> 	langlinks	binary
<dbname> 	logging	binary
<dbname> 	math	binary
<dbname> 	objectcache	binary
<dbname> 	oldimage	binary
<dbname> 	page	binary
<dbname> 	page_props	binary
<dbname> 	page_restrictions	binary
<dbname> 	pagelinks	binary
<dbname> 	protected_titles	binary
<dbname> 	querycache	binary
<dbname> 	querycache_info	binary
<dbname> 	querycachetwo	binary
<dbname> 	recentchanges	binary
<dbname> 	redirect	binary
<dbname> 	revision	binary
<dbname> 	searchindex	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	site_stats	binary
<dbname> 	smw_atts2	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	smw_conc2	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	smw_conccache	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	smw_ids	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	smw_inst2	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	smw_redi2	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	smw_rels2	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	smw_spec2	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	smw_subs2	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	smw_text2	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	spoofuser	latin1_swedish_ci
<dbname> 	templatelinks	binary
<dbname> 	text	binary
<dbname> 	trackbacks	binary
<dbname> 	transcache	binary
<dbname> 	updatelog	binary
<dbname> 	user	binary
<dbname> 	user_groups	binary
<dbname> 	user_newtalk	binary
<dbname> 	watchlist	binary

Table 	Create Table 
smw_ids	CREATE TABLE `smw_ids` (
        `smw_id` int(8) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
        `smw_namespace` int(11) NOT NULL,
        `smw_title` varchar(255) character set latin1 collate latin1_bin NOT NULL,
        `smw_iw` varchar(32) character set latin1 collate latin1_bin default NULL,
        `smw_sortkey` varchar(255) character set latin1 collate latin1_bin NOT NULL,
        PRIMARY KEY  (`smw_id`),
        KEY `smw_title` (`smw_title`,`smw_namespace`,`smw_iw`),
        KEY `smw_sortkey` (`smw_sortkey`)
        ) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=2071 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1

CATALOG_NAME 	SCHEMA_NAME 	DEFAULT_CHARACTER_SET_NAME 	DEFAULT_COLLATION_NAME 	SQL_PATH 
NULL	        <dbname> 	latin1	                         latin1_swedish_ci	NULL

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

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

ALTER DATABASE wikidb CHARACTER SET binary;

This will set the database default character set to binary and the collation to binary. After this, you'll have to delete the smw tables and recreate them. I think "SMW_refreshData -vfp" in the smw directory's maintenance subdir does that, if not, do it manually (The update command in Special:SMWAdmin is not enough, you have to delete them first, then recreate with the initialise command). Once that's done, check that they're all binary with the first command (select table_schema, table_name, table_collation from information_schema.tables where table_schema='wikidb';) Nx 15:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've run that Alter database command, and it said that it executed successfully.

How do I run the maintenance script? I'm using PuTTY, and have used cd to get to the folder with the php script, and typed in "SMW_refreshData -vfp", but it says "resource temporarily unavailable".

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 15:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

try "php SMW_refreshData -vfp" Nx 16:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Same result. :-( Philip J. Rayment^discuss 16:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Then you'll have to drop the tables manually:

use wikidb;

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

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

I don't know how phpMyAdmin works, so just delete these tables any way you can if this doesn't work. Nx 16:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I followed your steps, and they both said that they worked, and the tables have been changed. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 16:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

However, SMW is not working. Should I run the "Data repair and upgrade" in Admin functions for Semantic MediaWiki again? Philip J. Rayment^discuss 16:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you run initialise? If you did, data repair should repopulate the tables. Nx 16:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I clicked the "Initialise or upgrade tables" button, and looking in phpMyAdmin the tables were recreated. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 16:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, actually, perhaps I overstated it saying that SMW was not working. Looking at Noah's ark, the "Browse Properties" link is in the toolbox, and works. But the measurement properties in the article are not putting up boxes when hovering the mouse, like they should, and the table in Help:Semantic MediaWiki is missing. Editing or refreshing the pages doesn't help. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 16:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What about the "Data repair and upgrade", did you try that? Nx 16:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was asking if I should do! Philip J. Rayment^discuss 16:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've been more clear. Nx 16:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm running it now, but that's the one that takes a while. Might be time (2:38 a.m.!) to go to bed, I think! Philip J. Rayment^discuss 16:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that should fix it by the time you wake up. Good night! Nx 16:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's all working again now. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 23:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Cesspit

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

to: PJR, the main page and visual appeal

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

Less is often more, Ken. Leaving white (or negative) space is a common page layout technique to avoid over-crowding and distracting the eye. Too much clutter can make the page appear busy and difficult to read, a common fault on the web. It could do with a couple of small illustrations but filling blank space just because it's blank is usually a mistake. Ajkgordon 10:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

On my browser, there is no room below the "learn more" section, except when I zoom into the page (which enlarges the picture and the right hand column narrows as a result, making it longer). Philip J. Rayment^discuss 10:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

HermanH 11:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Popups and api

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

I gather that you've modified the per-user version, rather than the gadgets version? I tried to see if there were WP-specific paths in that (as I had to when I installed popups on CP), but couldn't find any that I thought needed changing. I don't know how different the gadget version is (it's certainly based on the same code), but presumably the same changes you made could be made to the gadgets version.

Hang on, I'll copy your code to the gadgets page and do a comparison... Oh, there's actually lots of differences.

The gadgets version works (well, you get a popup window; I haven't tried all the options on that), but only on selections in the edit box. I've tried to track down the problem, but with no success so far.

As for the API, that's what another user was asking about before, and I wasn't able to figure out how to make that accessible.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 14:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I used the current gadget file from WP, only changed that one line (return '' instead of return 'wiki'). As for the api, see here. Nx 14:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I reckon that's where I got it from, so it's changed a bit in the last few weeks! Philip J. Rayment^discuss 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Math markup

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

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

Abiogenesis

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

If you're planning on using maths formulas for abiogenesis I have to wonder if it couldn't be done more simply. But to answer your question, no further than in the link in the section above, I'm afraid. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 14:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The math is really not far beyond algebra, (I would try to keep calculus out of it) it is just easier with formating to line up the math symbols. Most of thermodynamics is algebra based.--Timsh 14:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Upload

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

Have you read the Membership page? Given the number of your mainspace contributions so far, I don't feel comfortable about nominating you for membership via a vote, but perhaps you meet a different requirement there, especially given your claim of earlier contributions to Conservapedia, etc. Also, given an edit comment of yours I just noticed, you should read ask:Copying from other sites. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 14:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Which one, the Stahl experiment? I am still writing the DNA synthesis article. The stahl experiment is a summary of what happened. The meat is in the pnas link where the actual paper is listed. Do you want a different format for lit cited? I guess I am asking what you mean.--Timsh 14:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to this edit comment. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 14:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Very important e-mail :)

Hi Phil,

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

Yes, I did get it (twice, I think), and will deal with it. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 02:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't mean to send it twice, sorry about that... weird... Excellent, thank you again!.-Ames 04:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

RationalWiki

Just so you know, we're:

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

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

Shut up, CUR. ħuman ^{Number 19} 02:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal!

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

What would the role of "official creator" be? Philip J. Rayment^discuss 13:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not much, really. I was envisioning something like a note on the template page that says "For new boxes, talk to Pink". Pink_{(Inertia presides over burnt modernist strides)} 13:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

How about putting a note on the page that you are available to help with creating user boxes, but in such a way that others can add their own names to the list also if they wish, including for other templates. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 13:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I think we already have a list like that. I think it's called "the userbox project", but I forget where it is.

Quick suggestion! The userboxes are currently displayed as code in the template list. What do you think of instead converting that section into a seperate page, where each box would actually be displayed, for ease of selection? It might be as simple as adding a bit of code to the {{tl}} template. Pink_{(Inertia presides over burnt modernist strides)} 15:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Members Nominations

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

Yes, I've been thinking the same thing. I'll put it on the top of each page. I'll also lower the requirement to seven votes as a temporary measure while we still only have relatively few members. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 08:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, see this. I count seven.BradleyF (LowKey) 05:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had seen it. I've now promoted him. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 10:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow!

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

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

Slightly puzzled

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

What two things exactly? "Hate" vs. "Hatred"? No difference. "Belief in" vs. "Hatred"? Do I need to explain that? I think my grammar's a bit poor, though. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 00:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just not sure what part of the original you objected to. To the best of my knowledgge, you have to posit the existence of a God in order to hate it. Were you taking "belief in" to mean something other than "believes in the existence of"? Pink_{(Inertia presides over burnt modernist strides)} 00:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There are atheists who show every sign of hating God, even though they ostensibly don't believe in Him (not "it", by the way), and the definitions did not include "believe in" as part of the definition. If belief in God is a necessary condition of hating God, then surely there's no need to spell it out.

And by the way, if your earlier edit conflict was with me posting in the section above, that's probably caused by you creating this section by editing the section above rather than clicking the "+" tab at the top of the page. Doing the latter should not have caused an edit conflict, so this is one way to avoid them.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 02:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement of faith?

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

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

Evolving policies

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

• "SOK assumes a biblical point of view. However, a Biblical worldview requires fully understanding other points of view, and the reasons used to defend them. Consequently, while non-biblical views will be secondary to biblical views, they will be fairly described and evaluated. They will not be censored. To the maximum extent possible, they will be clearly and concisely described in the words of their proponents before being evaluated from a biblical point of view." Ungtss 09:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Regulation 5 already covers this to some extent, and I've just modified it (including something that I've been thinking about for a while). I'm not sure that I want to go much further than that regarding links. The bit about coverage of alternative viewpoints bears a bit more thought. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 13:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Phil

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

Membership

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

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

First exchange:

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

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

That is simply you grossly misrepresenting my explanation

Why do you mischaracterise my attempts at explanations as dishonesty?

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

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

And yes, you are using magic.

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, and good work on threatening to block me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theresa, I will remove your membership status, as that is you wish. As it is by your request, you can ask for it to be reinstated at any time, if you do so choose. But to reinforce what Bradley said above, your reasons are incorrect. True, Jeeves did use the singular "creationist", but there was no "particular" creationist mentioned, and it read as though the "creationist" was an idiot simply because he was a creationist. As such, it applies to all creationists, not a particular one. And as Bradley said, he had opportunity to clarify the claim. The block was for the insult, not for "stating his opinion" as you claim. Many opinions are stated here, including many I don't agree with. So stating an opinion is not the issue; gratuitous insulting of others is. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 02:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

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

So you missed the real birthday in April? Thanks for the invitation, but I will pass. Although RW has done some useful things in exposing some of the problems with Conservapedia, that doesn't excuse it being a place of filthy and blasphemous language, replete with name-calling, smearing, innuendo, hypocrisy, and other undesirable attributes. And for those who don't follow my reference to the April birthday, like RW frequently criticises Conservapedia for, it "memory holed" or "erased the history", not just of individual pages as Conservapedia is known to do, but of the entire first version of the site. The May 22nd birthday is of the second version. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 02:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)