User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Archive 3

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search



Please read this: New Sysops Training Page

Conservative 21:23, 17 May 2007 (EDT)


Do you consider yourself technically savvy? If no, then please read Conservapedia:Proxy IP, and tell me if it makes sense, i.e. you understand what a proxy is. Thanks! --Hojimachongtalk 23:11, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd more describe myself as computer literate, I think, but I think that you want someone who is not technically savvy/computer literate to see if they understand it.
For me, although I've never really understood proxies (but do have a reasonable understanding of IPs), your explanation was quite clear. What I'm still not really clear on is how this relates to vandals "getting proxies". Your explanation talks about how proxies are a legitimate facility that might lead one to wrongly think that a person is using sockpuppets, but doesn't mention how vandals might deliberately use proxies to have different IPs for sockpuppets.
Philip J. Rayment 23:39, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Am I to conclude from this page that Conservapedia now has checkuser capability? If so, I strongly urge the creation of a policy for use of checkuser that makes checkuser in the hands of only a few of the most trusted individuals and also that makes it so that checkuser will be used only in very limited circumstances. JoshuaZ 23:53, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
As far as I know, it has always had that capability. Philip J. Rayment 23:58, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I'd argue that you should let all sysops use checkuser. Conservapedia is discrete in its use. HeartOfGold 00:11, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
There's no need to give it to more people than absolutely need it. For a wiki this small, there's no need for more than one or two very trusted people to have it. Discrete also isn't what such a policy should be. Rare use is far more important than discretion. JoshuaZ 04:16, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
What is the point of rare? It is a useful tool that should be available to all sysops. The importance of discretion is to avoid retaliatory identification of banned users. HeartOfGold 15:43, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
The point of keeping it rare is that 1) many people prefer to not have their IP addresses available. 2) The possibility of abuse becomes much higher when it is used more frequently 3) Not using it often makes it less likely that people editing from places with strict rules such as China or Iran will get in trouble for editing. JoshuaZ 17:37, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
As long as sysops use the checkuser feature for administration purposes, I don't see why we should restrain the use of the wonderful mechanism. JustineA --sysop--talk 17:40, 18 May 2007 (EDT)


Thanks for the spelling fix. I have a question. Should we add {{DEFAULTSORT: Clinton, Hillary Rodham}} or {{DEFAULTSORT: Rodham Clinton, Hillary}} for Ms. Rodham-Clinton? This case might be complicated by her recent tendancy to go by "Hillary Clinton", though her website has metatags for "Hillary Rodham Clinton." HeartOfGoldtalk 12:55, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

As an Aussie, I don't know enough about her name and her use of it to answer that, I'm sorry. Philip J. Rayment 21:52, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

New Section....

"Reinstate New section link, it's not irrelevant" but nothing shows.....[[1]] --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:20, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Ah, but it does; you're simply not looking in the right place.
Talk pages, but not article/project pages, have a "+" tab at the top (alongside "discussion", "edit", "history", etc.). Putting __NEWEDITSECTION__ on an article/project page adds the "+" tab to that page also, which is appropriate in the case of the Sysops page. Philip J. Rayment 22:29, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
  • But my talk page already has a + tab. I added that new section deal to my user page, lol. IM me please. Pretty please. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:53, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes, all talk pages already have it, but Conservapedia:Sysops is not a talk page, so it doesn't have it unless you put that "magic word" in, as it is usually not appropriate on non-talk pages. I'm at work, so I can't IM you at present, sorry. Philip J. Rayment 22:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Oh well, perhaps another time, so this whole template/AFD mess can get sorted out, without me mucking it up completely! I can get HeartOfGold perhaps to wade through it all with me. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:26, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Spelling etc

Thank you for both your kind comment and your 'timely reminder', Philip. Unfortunately my machine won't accept Mozilla, which I gather is the C'pedia recommended system, but I am downloading ieSpell, which I hope will do away with Insufficiently Checked Typo Horror. Cheers, Alba 06:52, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I use Maxthon (IE-based) with ieSpell. It's not automatic as Firefox apparently is, but it does the job. Philip J. Rayment 06:56, 23 May 2007 (EDT)


Your response to Hojimachong was brilliant.Bohdan Talk 22:17, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks :-) Philip J. Rayment 22:22, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

delete request

Hi Philip. I can't work out how to nominate an article for deletion (the page linked from the front page is protected), but Indigenous Australians is complete garbage. There is an article with some accurate information on the same subject at Aborigines. --Scott 10:33, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

I've brought the protection issue to the attention of the protecting sysop, and I'll list Indigenous Australians for possible deletion. Philip J. Rayment 11:16, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Actually, I'll find out how this should be done; there's been some discussion and changes regarding that recently, and I'm not sure myself what the currently-preferred way is. Philip J. Rayment 11:19, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Thankyou. Is the correct procedure here to blank the wrong content, then there will only be a sentence left for when deletion eventually cleans up? --Scott 02:05, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
Blanking the content is often done, but really only needs to be done for offensive content. I think some of the article in question might be salvageable and merged to the other article, but I note that Indigenous Australians started off as Aborigines and got renamed, so it's a moot point as to which should be merge to which. Of course there is nothing stopping you from removing the rubbish and leaving the valid bits, although I can understand your reluctance to do much if the page will end up being deleted. Alternatively (and this is my leaning), the usable content from both should be moved to Australian aborigines. Philip J. Rayment 02:45, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. I've deleted the rubbish, and will write an overview Indigenous Australians linking to separate Torres Strait Islanders and Australian Aborigines articles. The AA article will get most of the content from Aborigines. --Scott 05:08, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
That looks like a good plan. However, I thought that a bit more could have been salvaged from Indigenous Australians, such as something about the dreamtime, and how most are no longer living their traditional lifestyle. Philip J. Rayment 05:34, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
The version I destroyed had nothing else that was actually true. Perhaps there were a few ideas that could be adjusted to be true, but they weren't accurate in that state. I didn't check - have I destroyed your contribution? Sorry if I've been too blunt. --Scott 06:07, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
I agree that the way they were worded was not usable. I hadn't contributed anything to the article. Philip J. Rayment 06:10, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
I've added a "History" section to Australian Aborigines based on the key words you mentioned above and in what I deleted. If I've missed anything else you think should be there, please add it. If anything I wrote needs references, request them and I'll have a go at finding them. Most of it was just written tonight without referring to any particular reference. Of course, I no longer require any pages to be deleted now. Thanks. --Scott 09:15, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
You've done well! We are supposed to have references in articles, although in practice they generally only get asked for when something is in dispute. But if you can add them, that would be good. Philip J. Rayment 09:23, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
I would have added any references that I actually used. However, I only wrote what I knew without referring to other sources, hence no references. (I thought I typed this last night, but it doesn't appear here - I must have closed without saving). --Scott 19:29, 26 May 2007 (EDT)


How do you document templates? --AdrianP 04:00, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to explain that somewhere. Stay tuned. Philip J. Rayment 04:02, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
See help:Creating templates. And let me know what you think. Philip J. Rayment 05:35, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
I think it great that templates are starting to be documented. It makes for more organized wiki.--AdrianP 16:09, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Amen! And the usual 110% effort by Philip! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:22, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for making the changes to the Template:Geology Index. Crocoite Talk 12:51, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Hello, can I borrow you?

Hi Phillip. I was hoping you might be able to come around to the vestigial structures page and see if there you feel you would wish to give any input. I'm not sure I have been as successful as I'd like in communicating areas of difficulty, but perhaps you would be able to do a better job than I have in getting through in this area. Thanks ;-) Learn together 03:22, 28 May 2007 (EDT) (By the way, I read the correspondance that you saved from your time over in wiki land. I must say it was similar to my own, except that you were went the extra mile further than I did in continuing to try to try to appeal to fairness and logic in the hope that would win out. I gave up sooner and I admire your tenacity.)

Thanks for the compliment. I've attacked Vestigial structures, amounting to a partial rewrite, although your changes were very good. Philip J. Rayment 05:50, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
I see you've kept up the fight - and you've got a bit more clout than I do. ;-) If you've been pleased with my edits and the work I've done for conservapedia, I'm seeing if there's a need for me as a sysop. Hopefully my contributions have been seen in a positive light. If you have any thoughts you'd like to contribute, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Learn together 17:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)


Hi Phil, thanks for the code suggestion for my cool new sig. I'm still working on it at my talk page. I have the feeling I'm trying someting that this software doesn't really support. All the same if you're interested feel free to follow my endevors on my talk page WhatIsG0ing0n 08:09, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Hi Phil, My oh my you really are busy;-). Thanks for all those suggestions for my sig. TK was right about the image being too big. The HTML version is likely too big as well. I thought it was a good idea at the time but such a large sig. might annoy some people. It is, well, a bit intrusive to put it mildly. All I really wanted was a easily recognisable colorful sig. Please don't go to great lengths trying to sort it unless its for your own interest too. I hope someone already knows the answer. we could end up spending weeks fiddling around and still end up none-the-wiser. Anyway I've got to get busy myself civilizing my user page before TK blocks me (see here).
Thanks for all the help WhatIsG0ing0n 09:57, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
The size is more a matter of design than coding, but design is not my strength (see my sig!). Philip J. Rayment 10:00, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Perhaps Philip could be of assistance to you in fixing your user page to reflect our CP Guidelines? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Hi Phil, I would more than welcome any suggestions that would help ensure my user page reflects our CP Guidelines. Let me know on my talk page what (and where it is on the page) needs sorting and perhaps how or why. Thanks for your time. WhatIsG0ing0n 06:20, 29 May 2007 (EDT)


Is there a way to view the articles that have been created in conservapedia? It would certainly remove some concerns on creating duplicates. Thanks ;-) Learn together 02:44, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

In the "toolbox">Special pages>All pages, but I don't know how practicable that is, there being so many. Philip J. Rayment 02:49, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
It has already helped me, thank you. ;-) For links especially, guessing at the exact title wording has been difficult. This allows the removal of many of those difficulties. Learn together 11:55, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Any chance I can also have you rename 'Mark' as the 'Gospel of Mark'? (It matches the form used for the other Gospels). I could always copy it, but we'd lose the history. Thanks Learn together 15:26, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Done. Now, would you mind changing the links in these articles (except for the archive) so that they point to the new location (to avoid redirects)? Thanks. Philip J. Rayment 22:12, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you

You are truly an amazing editor, and a brilliant Christian. Keep up the good work.Богдан Talk 23:36, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Aw shucks. But thanks. :-) Philip J. Rayment 23:45, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Creation museum

I'm done for now. Dpbsmith 05:58, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Global Warming and geology

Philip, I guess this edit is meant to express the idea that geologists assume that the Earth is much older than 10,000 years - but that around half of Bible-believing Christians reject that chronology.

Perhaps we can come up with a formula which recognizes this conflict concisely.

Something like the following:

  1. According to mainstream geology ...
  2. Mainstream geologists, who put the age of the earth at over one billion years, say that ...

I'm looking for any formulation which pays respect to both your religious views and my scientific views. I don't want the clash between Young Earth and Old Earth to become a stumbling block for us. --Ed Poor 07:19, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd prefer to not have a formula, but to treat each case on its individual merits, in paying respect to your religious views and my scientific views. Is there a particular problem with that edit? Philip J. Rayment 07:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Edit summary

I smiled when I saw this:
(diff) (hist) . . Permian‎; 05:39 . . (+537) . . Philip J. Rayment (Talk | contribs) (De-evolutionise)
and wondered if the correct terminology for the edit summary would be (Devolve) or (Devolution) :D Insightful edit, by the way. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 05:48, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

LOL! I have many Devo CD's. That's almost the same thing.....--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:24, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
"Whip It" - that song and video stick in my mind. Wow - showing our age now, that has to be the best part of 30 years ago :S File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 06:44, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the compliment. But "Devolve" or "Devolution" implies something going backwards, whereas I was improving the article (well, I hope I was).  :-) Philip J. Rayment 09:40, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

New Guy Question

You seem to be the right person to ask this, as the editing etiquette article is your baby: If I create a new article, or substantially add to an existing and/or stubby one, is it more appropriate (etiquette-wise or operationally speaking) to build it online in smallish chunks, or is it okay to write it offline and cut-paste the whole thing when done? I prefer the latter, but I can see how that could be a problem for other editors wanting to get their two cents in and sysops watching for vandalish behavior...--JoeP 12:45, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

There's no problem writing it off-line and putting the whole thing in one chunk. It might raise suspicions that it has been copied from elsewhere, but as long as it isn't copied from elsewhere, there should be no problem. There's nothing stopping other editors changing it just because you've submitted it in one go. I edited this article that was originally submitted by another editor in one big chunk.
If you are changing an existing article, you run the risk of another editor also making changes between the time you take a copy and the time you submit your revised version. In that case, editing in smaller chunks can be better, but that's up to you.
Philip J. Rayment 12:51, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks--appreciate the help...--JoeP 14:15, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Re-edit of Chip Shop

Philip, do you mind if I revert Chip Shop. I have got some backing from Fingermouse, and Fox seems to have disappeared, at least he /she is not answering my challenges. It may be a genuine, but having read the article I think it has a nice feel. There are others in this series: mushy peas, chips, etc. and I can't see what Fox was on about.--AvengingAngel 13:27, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

The article is written to poke fun at Conservapedia and Conservapedians; the inaccuracies in innuendoes are subtle, and the aim is that they will be missed for what they are while the perpetrators snigger about their little prank and just how ignorant and gullible everybody at CP is. Scones are not battered potatoes. "Up market" establishments? Selling kebabs? Of course. How silly of me to think otherwise. I hear McDonalds now offer haute cuisine, too, in their Michelin rated establishments. "Many different styles and blends... all taste remarkably similar..." "Chip sauce... closely guarded centuries old..." "Health conscious multi-cultural delights..." "Mushy pea debate..." "four of fish and finger pie"? Blatant slang sexual metaphor. "Only place in the UK where mayonnaise..." Apart from every other chip shop, that is. Chinese-Italian chippy in Pompey? Hm, call me jimmy Hill 'cos I'm growing a beard... I'd be seriously concerned about the seriousness of anybody trying to defend this article in its current state. Maybe they would also like to defend the inclusion of "cumbernauld/chanty wrassling" in the Wrestling article... Sir John Betjeman being born in the fictional town of Melchester... (and being greatly influenced bt McGonnagal, too, eh, Ulysses?) ... How about Gordon Bowie? From Fulchester?... Or the wonderful article about Chutney Ferret - pity it didn't reference this... I stand by my edit, and any further edits I might make to articles about Britain. I grew up here, I know what I'm talking about ;) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:30, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
I've responded on the Chip Shop talk page. Philip J. Rayment 22:35, 31 May 2007 (EDT)


Pleistocene makes reference to the Earth being older than 6,000 years. What should we do about this? --AdrianP 22:32, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Fix it. I'm planning on checking the rest of those geologic system articles when I get time. Philip J. Rayment 22:37, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Also, ScientificAmerican (who made the pleistocene article) has made numerous edits discrediting YEC views, such as on the Tyrannosaurus rex article.--AdrianP 22:40, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Delete account

How do I delete my account? Hannibal ad portas 23:16, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Baraminology article deleted

Someone deleted the baraminology article. This is an extremely important article that demonstrates the science of the Bible and the truth of God. I pray that you'll reinstate the article, it's important. BillJones 02:19, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm rather curious as to what happened to it, too. It appears to have been deleted by a sysop--or admin, or something, the hierarchy here is positively Byzantine--who left a rather cryptic command in place of an actual edit description.--All Fish Welcome 02:27, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
The terms "Mongoloid" and "Negro race" aren't acceptable in the 21st century. DanH 02:28, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Better be praying to me. Not Philip. That "someone" was me. And the articles linked to it, Mongoloid, for one, was racist on the face of it. This is a wiki. I am an Administrator. That is part of my job. If it stands up, and you do, it can come back. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:30, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
Why do you need to threaten me, TK. I'm just trying to help. If you didn't want articles about the Negro, Caucasian, and Mongoloid races, then they shouldn't have been wiki-linked in the baraminology article. Since they were, and there was no article, I tried to explain how the races are descended from the sons of Noah. It's the truth. We're not liberals, we should tell the truth. BillJones 02:34, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
  • I missed the threat. Maybe I'm not so good in "reading into things" as you are. And my gut tells me from your choice of words above, and the inflamatory lingo you added to the Creation Museum article, you are a parodist vandal. You can email the blocking Sysop, and state your case. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:59, 1 June 2007 (EDT)


This user first got online here as DanielGreen, then got blocked, then became JimmyCampbell, then MacDonald, then a series of other names in succession, all named for RobS (and derogatory), and all except the first few vandalizing the Ann Coulter page. Just a little whiney kid who can't get his way. Karajou 11:07, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

He was complaining about the editing of Pleistocene, which was being edited by user:ScientificAmerican, who got blocked, and was then edited by user:AmericanScientist, who got blocked, and was then edited by user:DanielGreen, who got blocked, and was then edited by user:JimmyCampbell, who got blocked, and was then edited by user:JimmyMacDonald, who got blocked. So I believe that the sequence started with ScientificAmerican (if not someone earlier), with DanielGreen. Philip J. Rayment 11:22, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Userboxes 2

Yes, I would like to turn my homeschooling userbox into a template. Any other tips are gladly welcomed! DeborahB. 08:42, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Nobel Peace Prize laureates

Philip as you seem to be the only sysop on at the moment could you do me a favour. I put in a lot of categories for Nobel laureates and changed to name of the category from "Nobel Peace Prize laureates" to "Nobel laureates in Peace" so that it had the same style as all the other prizes. However, Martin Luther King is locked and I cannot change the cat. If you could either unlock it for me or change it yourself then that would be great. It might also be a good idea to delete the old category when it is empty. Thanks MadMin 10:02, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

I've changed Martin Luther King for you, but I have not deleted the category; see what I've done to the category then tell me if that's not a good idea. And thanks for your efforts. Philip J. Rayment 10:15, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
That looks fine, thanks. MadMin 10:18, 3 June 2007 (EDT)


I blocked the wrong guy!! You need to unblock the most previous user i blocked!!--Will N. 12:17, 4 June 2007 (EDT) Its Sevenstring. You need to unblock him, I cant figure that out yet.--Will N. 12:21, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Done (correctly, I hope). You are fortunate, because it was one last check before hitting the sack. Philip J. Rayment 12:32, 4 June 2007 (EDT)


As per the message you left on Geo.plrd's talk page,Geo.plrd has documented the award templates. Site Sheriff(Sysop)Geo. 15:48, 4 June 2007 (EDT)


Philip, Thanks for fixing the Template:Mineral Crocoite Talk 17:20, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Geologic Time Periods

Let's just put both then, thats neutral --ScientificAustralian 08:39, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

"Geologic system" was chosen to be neutral, so how does adding "geologic time periods" make it neutral if it's already neutral? Philip J. Rayment 08:49, 5 June 2007 (EDT)


I notice the category "Geological time periods" was reinserted in the article. In looking at the category, I note that other similar 'periods' are included: Cretaceous, Ordovician, Pleistocene, etc. It seems to me whatever is decided, it should probably be uniform as to what belongs in "Geological time periods". Learn together 11:31, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

See here. Philip J. Rayment 12:17, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I see, thank you. In looking at what you put and following it to the Tyrannosaurus rex page, I notice that reference 9 points towards the wikipedia Tyrannosaurus entry. Isn't this against conservapedia rules? Learn together 12:29, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes, and there were other problems with that section, so I've removed it entirely. Philip J. Rayment 09:50, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Template:Bible ref


I see that the #if directive finally works. It didn't when I first wrote my Bible ref template. Now I can write it properly--and have.

I propose that Bible ref2 template for immediate deletion.

Thanks for at least putting the idea into my head, that maybe--just maybe--the parser could process #if directives now, as it should.--TerryHTalk 20:55, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Latest repair

Philip, I had to move a "noinclude" tag from where you had it to the end. The template was repeating Note B and the Alternative at every Bible reference.

Also, you were correct: {{{parm|default}}} works just as well as does {{#if:{{{parm|}}}|{{{parm}}}|default}} But I'm not so sure that we can dispense with #if directives completely. For example, two of my directives say that if a parameter is present, the expression runs one way; otherwise it runs the other way.--TerryHTalk 11:49, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry about the "noinclude" tag.
I suspected you might still need some #if: statements, but I didn't check the code closely enough to tell.
Philip J. Rayment 21:40, 6 June 2007 (EDT)


Any publicity is good. So what Rob has done is turn it back on themselves, is all. It was a tongue-in-cheek bit. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:03, 6 June 2007 (EDT)


Concerning your deletion of the Crime category from the entry on Child Molestation: I started the Crime category because there were several small categories (Crimes, Criminals, Criminology) that made it hard to use the category link to find related articles, so I created the larger category. I do not know what the CP policy is on subcategories, but I thought it would be useful to have the individual items listed, as well as the categories, for someone who is browsing the subject. If this is not a good idea, I will leave the individual entries out. Just wanting to check, before wasting both of our time. Boomcoach 10:29, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure that I follow you. I don't think Conservapedia has a policy on this; I was just applying what I thought to be common sense. Are you suggesting that every article that has a category for one of the sub-categories and sub-sub-categories of crime also has a category of crime? Philip J. Rayment 10:48, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
To some extent, yes that is what I was thinking. I thought it would be useful to have one super-category of Crime, which one could go to to find any of the articles related to crime. Having sub-categories would still be a good thing, especially as the site grows, but I think that the individual links would be good also. As categories can be created "on the fly", there seem to be quite a few tiny specialized categories, which seem of little use, so I was trying to create a large, broad category that could be a connection between the disparate areas, which would include specific links to things in the category.Boomcoach 11:08, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
I'm not convinced that it's a good idea, but I'll bow to you judgement and not interfere. Philip J. Rayment 11:19, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
Just to weigh in on this, since I have been doing some work with categorization in History and Biographies so far, I think for the time being since the Crime main category is so small, its fine to dual-categorize like you are. However, as the category grows you will want to go back through and prune the main category tag from articles that have been sub-categorized. --Colest 12:48, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
You are probably right. I have already left out some things on the sub pages that don't seem to really be within the "crime" category, such as "mass murderers", which is more about political genocides than what most people would think of as "Crime". I may create a Serial Killer category for the Gacy's and Ripper's. Stalin and Pol Pot are a whole different category of killer, plus their motivations are significantly different from serial killers. Boomcoach 13:00, 6 June 2007 (EDT)


Philip, Do yo know which Sysop's are all online right now? RobS 10:52, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

TK was a little while ago and may still be, but otherwise, no, I don't know. The best way to tell, I think, is to look at the "recent changes" page. Philip J. Rayment 10:54, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. I'm going to send you an email. RobS 10:56, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
I got the "I'm back" one about half an hour ago". Philip J. Rayment 11:00, 9 June 2007 (EDT)


1)The relations between Gaelic football and rules is a bit tenuous and mystic. Aussie Rules was written by people who had played Rugby football at the rugby school in England and Cambridge Rules. Gaelic was made in Ireland in the 1880s and the influences on its formation probably bear no relation at all to Aussie Rules. I am not sure there is a need to mention in depth about the games on a broad general summary of sort in Australia. It just seemed a bit messy in there.

2)Rules was very popular in Brisbane a few years back but has since gone down and is now dwarfed in QLD by rugby codes. I meant that it is no where near the top code of football in QLD or NSW, which population-wise accounts for over half of the country. I am not sure what measure one would use to guage what makes a code of football popular or unpopular, other than whether it is predominate in the area. --Incognito 08:40, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

The bit you removed did not claim that Gaelic football and Aussie Rules had similar origins, merely that they are similar and that a "blended" version of the game is played in international matches. I believe this to be correct. Philip J. Rayment 08:44, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes, it is correc that the "International Rules" series plays a blend of the two codes (when they aren't fighting!) --Bilby 10:21, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Australia page "locked"?

What does it mean when a page is locked and how might one go about contributing to it when that lock is in place? Who places locks?

--Bilby 09:18, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Due to vandalism generally occurring overnight US time, Conservapedia has lately been "locked down" at such times to prevent people from editing, except for administrators and others who have been granted editing rights. The page does not show to me as being locked (which it would if protected, even though I can edit protected pages), so I'm guessing that this "lockdown" is the problem, although I thought that would prevent all editing, yet you managed to post here.
There's not much I can do about it right now, I'm afraid, except for sending a message to a bureaucrat to ask them to give you editing rights, but it might be sometime tomorrow (our time) before anything happens.
Philip J. Rayment 09:27, 10 June 2007 (EDT)


The lock seems to have gone from the pages I was looking at so I assume the sun has risen over Boston (or whereever the sun first rises over there ...) Ah the enlightened Americans!--Bilby 09:34, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm, I wonder if that really was the problem, but I don't have a better explanation, so perhaps it was. Happy editing, anyway.
By the way, when I look at the Australia article, the flag image doesn't load, although the image itself is there and I can see nothing wrong with the link. Do you have this problem also, or is it just me? Philip J. Rayment 09:39, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
From memory I put a flag there originally and then it was replaced by the current flag. Then someone changed the size of the image and it hasn't appeared properly since. I assume, but have never bothered to look, that the size of the image is different to the code telling the page to display the image and that it therefore can't cope and won't show the image. Probably an easy fix but I haven't yet had the time to either look or learn how to fix it.... (Just call me lazy!) --Bilby 10:19, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
It's normal for the code on a page to specify a size different to the image itself, so that shouldn't be the problem. But I might experiment a bit when I get a chance. Philip J. Rayment 10:25, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately, I've found that people often hone in on a specific suggestion and ignore the main point being made.

I'm coming to the conclusion that it's often a deliberate tactic here. --Robledo 19:30, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

It's a phenomenon that I've encountered in many places in many circumstances, and I've never thought that it was deliberate. It's just that people often don't read and properly understand what someone else has written, but notice one thing and respond to that one thing as though it was the only thing said. Philip J. Rayment 19:37, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
Do you prefer Raymont or Rayment? heh heh heh bd Talk 19:33, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
I prefer my name to be spelt correctly. I think you know which way is correct, and I have corrected the one recent incorrect use of it. I also noticed another user being referred to as "Cronkite"! But I won't start here on another of my hobbyhorses, proper spelling. Philip J. Rayment 19:37, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
I was just joking. I know its Rayment. bd Talk 19:39, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I realised you were joking, and I said that I thought you knew which was correct. I should have put a smiley on my previous post, I suspect. Anyway, I'll put one here so that everyone realises that I'm not being all serious-like.  :-)   Philip J. Rayment 19:41, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

See your point about Christianity template but

I See your point about Christianity template but I would still likely use the word Christianity or Christianity (the previous word goes to Christianity) in my Christianity related articles so the template issue is still relevant. Anyways, I think there is a 90% chance Andy will agree with me and Crocite and just not have a Christianity template. Conservative 20:23, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

  • On that, you would be wrong, Conservative. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:07, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Dinosaur text

Dear Philip;

Are you responsible for the canned "Young Earth Creationists accept..." text which appears in most dinosaur articles? If so, I'd like to discuss a couple items with you.

Thanks for your attention.

Tisdale.david 11:44, 12 June 2007 (EDT)David Tisdale

I'm not sure exactly what text you are referring to, but although I have certainly put some such material in to some articles (and was responsible for a significant amount of editing of the dinosaur article), I tend not to simply put the same text in different articles.
But discuss away if you wish; I'm curious!
Philip J. Rayment 22:49, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Was looking at the recent changes to dinosaur articles yesterday. All three contained the same YEC statements. Not similar, the same. So, it's my assumption that it is editing by the same person. My issue is whether POV statements should go in the lead paragraph. It seems to me that articles should start with consensus (size, illustrations, scientific names, etc.) and that we should move on to Young Earth, Old Earth, theistic evolution, whatever, in clearly labeled sections.

There are a bunch of reasons for this. First, I think it would lessen the editing wars to give everybody his own sandbox. Second, it would give clearer guidelines for proper editing. Third, in cases like dinosaurs where there will be (eventually) hundreds of articles, it will be very easy to provide an essay which explains a particular POV for the general case and link to it, saving the effort of adding the same information to every article, and allowing more thorough referencing and sourcing.

So, the issue is making a clear division between consensus and POV. The suggestion is to provide POV essays on relevant issues, and links (perhaps in templates, or stubs). Think about the literally hundreds of edits on the T. Rex page, and how few of them were about facts.

Oh, and, one quibble. The YEC text always says that YECers "accept" that the earth is young. This seems a fairly awkward construction with connotative implications. Why not just "believe"?

Thanks for your interest.

Tisdale.david 13:11, 13 June 2007 (EDT)David Tisdale

I was hoping that you would tell me which actual articles/text, but I suspect that the text you are talking about is not mine. Whether or not POV statements go in the lead paragraph really depends on the circumstances, but the creation/evolution issue is mostly about origins, and for dinosaur articles, I don't see any reason to talk about their origin in the lead paragraph. Having said that, however, the issue is also about how old things are, so if the lead paragraph mentions how long ago they are supposed to have lived, a POV has been introduced.
I think that different views should only be in separately-headed sections if the content of those views is large enough to warrant different sections. If you look at Permian, for example, for the size of the article and the different POVs, I think it would be silly to have different sections for the POVs. The different POVs are (at the moment) sufficiently brief that they are best included just as they currently are. I think that Permian could have more (neutral) material about the Permian, but otherwise is a model of what these sort of articles can be like, with only minimal, but fair and equal, references to the different POVs.
I don't like "accept" either, but if we use "believe", would evolutionists be happy with the word "believe" being associated with their views? I think it's fine for both, but I've encountered many evolutionists who object to the idea that they "believe" these things. I think it's a constant challenge finding words that are accurate, not awkward, fair and acceptable, and don't sound repetitious.
Philip J. Rayment 08:54, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Right you are. I was just being lazy. The particular article was on velociraptor, the edit (I think) was by Scorpion. As you can see there is about twice as much space spent on YEC promotion as on dino facts. In my opinion, the YEC section in "Dinosaurs" is a great statement of the YEC position and we would be better served linking to that. If nothing else, you wouldn't have to fight the "Oh Yeah?", "Sez Who" sectarian wars on every dino page.

On a practical note, if you are a kid looking up dinosaurs and every Conservapedia dinosaur page is more sectarian position paper than info and illustrations, you're just going to go elsewhere. Maybe it's framing, but isn't it more pragmatic to present accurate information in an attractive package?

Tisdale.david 14:57, 14 June 2007 (EDT)David Tisdale

Have a look at Velociraptor now. Philip J. Rayment 06:39, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Nice edit, also liked wombat. Seems like Neogene and Colest see a similar issue arising for geological ages. Do we need a debate page on consensus formatting for contentious issues? Better to be active than reactive, hey?

Tisdale.david 11:56, 18 June 2007 (EDT)David Tisdale

I think in this case and for now I'd rather just address the issues as they arise. Philip J. Rayment 01:25, 19 June 2007 (EDT)


There is a problem in relation to the Creationism and Young earth creationism articles.

Before I get into the problem here is some background information:

If a article on the internet is 17% or more the same as an existing article on the internet (which controls most of the internet search engine traffic) will rank the article lower in regards to its place on the search list and from what I heard the ranking will be pretty low. Here is how to check how similar your article is to a current article on the internet:

The current problem is that the Creationism article ranks super low on Google and the Young earth creationism article ranks pretty high on Google. I believe this is because of the duplicate content penalty. I want to have the similar headings for the Creationism article but have different content underneath the headings.

By the way, I don't think it matters if the Theory of evolution articles and Young earth creationism articles are similar. I am guessing that relatively few people will do a search on "theory" and "evolution".

Do you have any interest in helping to rewrite the Creationism article or doing the whole rewrite yourself and then later have it edited/polished? Conservative 19:39, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I've never heard of Google ranking being based on how different or similar content is to other sites, although I see that the link you provided does mention that (without specific reference to Google). I think I'd like to know more about search engines rank on this basis, i.e. which of two similar pages get the higher ranking.
I would like to do some heavy editing of various creation-related articles, but fear that we will strongly disagree over content, as was the case with Jurassic.
Philip J. Rayment 23:00, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
Mr. Rayment, Here is more about the duplicate content penalty: and Again, right now Young earth creationism is ranked high and it seems as if Creationism is being hit with the duplicate content penalty. I can't answer your question about how google picks which one is penalized but I do know which one is being penalized and it is the Creationism article. Please feel free to change the content of Creationism. Since both YECs and OECs agree on certain issues I think we can keep many of the same headings but we have to change content under the headings. Please feel free to change content in Creationism article (new paragraphs, new headings, etc. ). I can certainly add my two cents also. But the article does need to be changed. Conservative 21:44, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
I changed my mind. I don't care if the Creationism article has the same titles. I just think it needs to be changed due to the duplicate content rule of search engines. Also, I believe the Young earth creationism article needs to be changed. Are you interested in changing them? Conservative 15:58, 15 June 2007 (EDT)


  • Philip, please log out of CP and then go try to find the "email user" link to the left on my page. Perhaps they should be directed to ? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:39, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
You are talking about someone who is not logged in, not someone who is banned. If a banned user can still log in (but not edit), then they can still "e-mail this user". In support of this, I've had e-mails via the "E-mail this user" link from users who were banned. Philip J. Rayment 08:49, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Never had that happen. I just know on other wikis, not registered or logged out, I cannot use the email link as it doesn't appear. So, leave what you had, and add the text about emailing the webmaster, as a if all else fails. Thanks. BTW, Editors Guide has been moved over to "policy". --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:56, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
"Not registered" and "logged out" are not the situation we are talking about. I'm happy with the "if all else fails" bit. Philip J. Rayment 09:01, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Smashing! Sorry for the (my) confusion! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 13:12, 13 June 2007 (EDT)


I'm not entirely sure what to do with this. Did I do it right? If not, can you help me? There's also another userbox I created. Greg 13:42, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

I've commented on your talk page that documenting user boxes is not currently required, but as far as they way you've done it is concerned:
  • The TemplateDoc box is correct. This illustrates why, though, we haven't required it; what you've put there would be identical on every user box (except for the categories bit, which is why we might review the requirements).
  • The Parms box is incorrect. Your user box has no parameters, yet you have listed as though it does. As you are going away, I'll fix it for you.
Philip J. Rayment 22:59, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you...

...for creating the Evolution and Creation Compared article!! I look forward to contributing. Will you help me write it? You guys know more...-Phoenix 08:21, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'll keep an eye on it and put my two bob's worth in. Philip J. Rayment 08:23, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
Also, I'm a stickler on capitalization: could you move it to "Creation and Evolution Compared"? I think it looks better, but feel free to disagree. Thanks again, I'll start when I get back!-Phoenix 09:00, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
Convince me it should be that way. Apart from proper names, article titles should normally be in all lower case (apart from the first letter), if for no other reason it makes it easier to include them in links in sentences. Admittedly that is not likely to apply in this case, but consistency's also good, isn't it? Philip J. Rayment 09:04, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for the explanation of how to create a category [[2]] I appreciate your assistance. --Taj 15:07, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Geologic Time periods (2)

Hi, if you get the chance I'd like for you to chime in here Talk:Neogene‎. I've suggested combining the Evolutionary Geologic Time periods into one article, and turning the others into redirects. I say this because they are only one sentence, and each have the YEC disclaimer pasted on them. I was thinking a timeline type article, with the disclaimer on it, would be more efficient. --Colest 16:10, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

I concur. You're definitely the expert aroud here PJR, so could you do this? I didn't know how to, so I'm sorry for my crude entries. Carefulnature 16:13, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
I'm not trying to make work for the man, just get his approval/opinion. It's easy enough that either one of us could do it. --Colest 16:26, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
I've added my comments to Talk:Neogene. Philip J. Rayment 06:47, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Go ahead and delete this but...

How are you tonight/today? Bohdan 23:24, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm terrific. How are you? Philip J. Rayment 00:15, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
He certainly does know s___ from shinola! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 04:44, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't get that. Bohdan 23:22, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure that I do either, but I didn't want to ask. ;-| Philip J. Rayment 23:49, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
  • It is an "old adage"...and Bohdan now knows. Make him tell you.  ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:59, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for letting me know...never knew about the hidden bold! Let me grab the pebble once! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 12:17, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Six thousand?!

It says on your user page that you believe the Earth is 6000 years old. How can you seriously believe that the Earth is 6000 years old? I'm not trying to get into an argument, but there are facts out there that prove how old the earth is (4.5 billion years old), and it is widely accepted around the world. Why do you believe this?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dareisay (talk)

Say, Dareisay, just what sort of "facts" actually "prove" that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? By what clock?--TerryHTalk 20:19, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
So I take it, Dareisay, that you believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. How can you seriously believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? There is eyewitness testimony that proves how old the Earth is (6,000 years), and this testimony has been widely accepted around the world for thousands of years. Why do you believe this?
Okay, apart from turning your question back on you, I'll actually address your question. I reject that there are "facts" that "prove" any such thing that you claim. What exists are beliefs about (a) the age of the world, and (b) about how the facts are interpreted. For example, the existence of a giant gash through the rock formations in Arizona (the Grand Canyon) is a fact. What is not a "fact", is how long it took to form. Most/many geologists believe that it was formed by a little bit of water (the Colorado River) cutting it over a long period of time. Creationary geologists (and some non-creationists) believe that it was formed by a lot of water (either run-off from Noah's flood or the collapse of a natural dam) in a little bit of time (months?). Both explanations are interpretations of the same facts. The canyon is a fact, how it formed is not a fact.
Now, as TerryH asked, what facts, as distinct from explanations and interpretations, actually do prove that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old?
Philip J. Rayment 23:49, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Your CMI article is way better than the AIG article!

Your CMI article is way better than the AIG article! Well done! Conservative 18:10, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. And it's not just the article that is better! ;-) Philip J. Rayment 10:48, 29 June 2007 (EDT)


Hi Philip (If that really is your name...)

If you would be so kind as to look the other way, I'm going to "steal" some of your userboxes. PrometheusX303 08:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Hello PrometheusX303. I was away for a week, so didn't see anything! And yes, this is my real name. Philip J. Rayment 10:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
lol That was just a joke. Just saying hi. PrometheusX303 23:19, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Jurassic changed to your liking I believe

Due to the duplicate content search penalty that the search engines impose on web pages/articles (if pages are 17% or more similar) I altered the content in regards to the various geological ages proposed by old earthers (Jurassic, etc.). I think you will be pleased with the material. It also has the added benefit of causing our young earth creationism to be accessed more which will drive it up in the search engine rankings (Currently our Young earth creationism article is ranked 10th by Google. Conservative 12:13, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I saw you had made some changes, and figured it was because of the duplicate content, although I haven't had time yet to have a close look. Philip J. Rayment 19:32, 30 June 2007 (EDT)


Why did you delete the Wagner article? Granted, I couldn't read the whole thing, but it seemed legit. Maestro 11:59, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

It was a direct copy of the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article of the same name. Philip J. Rayment 12:05, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Stefan Dusan

Could you move Stefan Dusan to Stefan Dushan, all of the text uses the latter spelling. BrianCo 23:25, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Done. You could have linked Stefan Dusan for me though!  :-) Philip J. Rayment 23:28, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks and sorry, I'll remember next time. BrianCo 00:14, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Link to older news

Philip, thanks for adding the link to older news and for assisting my efforts on the Previous News section. I also appreciate your other positive contributions to the Breaking News section. Your internationalizing of my articles is important for our worldwide audience. --Crocoite 23:47, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

You mean internationalising?  :-)   Thanks for the feedback. Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools