User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Archive 4

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Team contest

I would like you on my team for our new team contest. Please let me know if you are able to compete. ~ SharonTalk 06:27, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

I would have been happy to sit this out, but what the heck, I might as well say 'yes'. Philip J. Rayment 09:34, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
Great! I'm sure you will be one of the top contributors in this contest. This will be a lot of fun, and will help the site immensely. Our team's page is here. ~ SharonTalk 09:39, 6 July 2007 (EDT)


Yes, thank you. I sow you do that way. Now I know how. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 22:55, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Locking database

Did you have the database locked for any particular reason? I unlocked it just now. --Ed Poor Talk 10:49, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, due to persistent vandal attack. I was wondering who unlocked it just as I was letting Andy know that I'd locked it. Hopefully they've gone away. Philip J. Rayment 10:52, 9 July 2007 (EDT)


All is finished. The template is gone, as is all traces of its existence. I can't believe I missed those before. Thanks for pointing them out. Bohdan 19:11, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I really liked your model railway story[1]. I heard a different version:
Pavlo was building a model railway, and Taras liked to come and see how it was going, but was always criticising: "haven't you got that connected yet?", "When are you going to paint this?", and so on. Eventually Pavlo had enough, and told Taras that he wasn't welcome any longer.
One day, Pavlo visited his modeller friend Bohuslav, and was surprised to see how much progress he had made with his model railway. Pavlo commented on how much he had done. Bohuslav replied, "Yes, an old friend of yours, Taras, keeps coming around and nagging me about things, and that's urged me to get working on it and as a result I've got a lot done".
Later that day, the Cheka showed up, and all three of them were taken to work in a Siberian gulag! the preceeding comment (and the one above) were meant to be taken as jokes, so please take no offence Bohdan 23:01, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
What did the Cheka have against model railways?????? Philip J. Rayment 09:09, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Welcoming Users

I don't know if we're supposed to do this, but I just have to say you are amazing!!!!!!! (even if you aren't on my team :) I went to your contest page, and all I saw was the list of users you welcomed :) Good job and keep up the good work! (but don't win :) DeborahB. 10:23, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks! Now if only I could count all the ones I did before the contest started! Philip J. Rayment 10:30, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Extra colons for categories

"Then for a moment when I saw those extra colons, I thought the software must somehow add them on the next edit!)"

Yeah, I'm like a walkin', talkin' MediaWiki extension :P --Sid 3050 09:40, 13 July 2007 (EDT)


Dear Mr. Rayment,

Out of 112,000,000 article for the search term "Theory of evolution" the Conservapedia article ranks #31. I want to move the article into the top 5. Therefore, I have decided to work on making the footnotes for the Evolution article more user friendly. There are about 180 of them. Would you like to help me? Conservative 11:17, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

I guess so, although it would be nice if we had settled on a style for footnotes first. Philip J. Rayment 11:19, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, I am working on the first section which is located here: Can you work on this section: I am keeping it very simple. I am putting down the title of the article and the author. If the author is famous I will do something like this: Carl Wieland. Conservative 11:27, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
Please let me know when you are done with your section. I want to coordinate things between Andy, you, and me. Conservative 11:32, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
I just did a couple—in the area that you now say you are doing! It shouldn't matter which we are doing; we can't both work on it at the same time, because of potential edit conflicts, and if we are working on it at different times of the day (likely; I'm heading of to bed shortly), then it doesn't matter if we both do the same areas.
Despite having just done that, I really think that this is one article in which we should have a separate Bibliography or Sources section as I discussed on the page about the footnotes style.
Philip J. Rayment 11:36, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
P.S. I see that you've copied part to a separate page to work on. Yes, that could cause a problem if we don't keep to separate areas. Philip J. Rayment 11:36, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
I am working on the section I told you to work on. Please watch what I am doing in my work area so you don't duplicate what I am doing. Conservative 12:19, 14 July 2007 (EDT)


did you notice this change? [2] Bohdan 00:11, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

I did, thanks, and I'm going to check it out further shortly. Philip J. Rayment 00:14, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
It was vandalism. Philip J. Rayment 00:23, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
its good you corrected it. Say, who won the Fed Cup tie between Ukraine and Australia? ;) Bohdan 20:25, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Yes, it was a particularly nasty bit of vandalism. Fed Cup??? I haven't a clue; despite being an Aussie, I'm not interested in sport. :-) Philip J. Rayment 20:29, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Fed Cup is womans tennis. Its not particularly interesting, but at least Ukraine won! Bohdan 20:35, 15 July 2007 (EDT)


Good news.

That list is necessary. Thank you Philip. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:10, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

can you work on footnotes right now?

Can you help me footnote the evolution article right now? Conservative 13:18, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

No. 3:18 a.m. is not a good time for me. I was busy pushing out zeds (US: zees). I might be able to in around an hour from now. Philip J. Rayment 19:30, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Copyrighted Images (See Recent Changes)

Could you please help Jinka...he's kind of freaking out about the images and I'm not sure what to say to him :) DeborahB. 12:01, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

It's Jinkas, by the way. And I'm not freaking out, just trying to keep Conservapedia free of copyrighted images. :) Jinkas 12:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
I see where you removed the baseball image. Was there any other discussion? The image's talk page says that its use should be considered "fair use". There is a provision in copyright law for "fair use" of an image in certain circumstances, and to my non-legal brain, use of that particular image on that page should fall within the "fair use" criteria. Philip J. Rayment 12:09, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
All I found was this big scary warning at
The following are trademarks or service marks of Major League Baseball entities and may be used only with permission of Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. or the relevant Major League Baseball entity: ... the silhouetted batter logo, ... and the names, nicknames, logos, ... designating the Major League Baseball clubs and entities ...
I don't see anything in there about fair use, so I just think we should be careful. I added a comment in Category talk:Baseball teams about the team logos as well. Jinkas 12:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
They need to have big scary warnings or some smart lawyer will argue that they don't really care about protecting their images, but as I said, "fair use" is a provision of the copyright law, and nothing that the club says can change that. The only real concern is whether Conservapedia's use of it really does constitute "fair use", but as I mentioned, I believe that it does. Using the image other than to illustrate something to do with the owner of the logo would probably not be though. Wikipedia, for example, points out that "fair use" images cannot be used on user pages, as such use would not constitute "fair use". Only using them in relevant articles is okay. Philip J. Rayment 12:28, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
That's a good point; I've just always been a fan of the "better safe than sorry" route, since basically you don't know if a particular use of a copyrighted work is actually fair use until a judge rules on the matter (not that I think it would ever come to that here, but you never know). I guess I'll just keep my eyes open for images that obviously wouldn't be considered fair use. Jinkas 12:33, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
You may be right about the judge bit, but keep in mind that no organisation is going to waste money taking you to court without first asking you to remove the image. That's not a good reason to try and get away with using copyright images, but it is a point to keep in mind. Philip J. Rayment 12:37, 17 July 2007 (EDT)


Aziraphale had asked me to take care of Toltecs, but I guess I just totally forgot to look into it. So, thanks for taking care of it! --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 12:10, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

No worries. Philip J. Rayment 12:12, 17 July 2007 (EDT)


Ok, I started working on my Undocumented templates and I now think I have no idea on what I'm doing (I've gone over the instructions many times). Is this one, Template:Miami Dolphins Roster, somewhere close to being right? Thanks--Tash 12:14, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Look at the edit history of that template, and you'll see a step-by-step guide to the changes I made.
But I should ask a question. Templates are usually designed to save repeating the same information on multiple pages. Are you intending to use these templates on more than one page? If not, why are you making them templates rather than just creating the tables on the pages concerned? (And if you are, the reference in the documentation to it being used on a particular page needs to be changed to be more general.)
Philip J. Rayment 12:23, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Understood. Could you please delete these templates Template: Buffalo Bills Roster,Template:Miami Dolphins Roster,Template:Philadelphia Eagles Roster and Template:Cleveland Browns Roster. Thanks --Tash 14:13, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

As you can see from the red links, they are now gone. Philip J. Rayment 20:45, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Do we have a list of Templates? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 17:50, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

You can go ahead and delete the Patriots Template now. Thanks!--Tash 21:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)


Where was your mind when you did this?? Philip J. Rayment 08:19, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

In deed, It is a terrible mistake. Going for Vandals and may be tired I did it! Sorry. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

It was a roolback! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Rooly? Yes, I realised that you didn't type it yourself, but I also realised that you musn't have been looking too closely at what you were rolling back to. Philip J. Rayment 08:42, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Yes indeed, you are absolutely right! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:06, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

i love this website

i would just like to congradulate you on a being part of this great website, im so sick and tired of the left wing [deleted] on wikipedia, never in all my life have i here stuff like that. this website gives us all hope! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Americaman (talk)

Then hopefully you can help us to make it grow. There are many areas where a knowledgeable contributor can create new articles or expand existing ones. You can not only love this website, but you can be a part of its continued improvement. Learn together 16:51, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Do you know how to download pictures?

If so can you download this Caricature of Darwin:

Conservative 20:09, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

I found a higher-resolution one to use. See here. Philip J. Rayment 20:41, 18 July 2007 (EDT)


Normally I appreciate your internationalizing the Template:Tfa, but this time you wiped out my excellent Rudy Giuliani article. [3] --Crocoite 21:27, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't know how that happened, and I'm quite sure I didn't get an edit conflict. Philip J. Rayment 21:34, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the fix. I added a few improvements too. [4] --Crocoite 21:46, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Template Help

I'm trying to put this template (Template:NBC Nightly News Anchors) into the lists of templates page but for some reason the spam filter is blocking me. Any help would be appreciated! Thanks--Tash 18:41, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Sorry, but only Andy can remove things from the SPAM fliter, not Sysops. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:50, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
Ok, thanks TK. I'll head over to Andy's page--Tash 19:00, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
Instead of implying that Andy change the spam filter, I'd be looking at what Tash was trying to put in that the spam filter was rejecting. I've just listed it without any problems (and of course sysops are as subject to the spam filter as anyone), so I don't know what the problem was. Philip J. Rayment 19:47, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, I would have emailed that, but of course those were my thoughts as well. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:48, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
What was blocked by the spam filter when I tried to do it was this, * {{NBC Nightly News Anchors}} Horizontal nav box for profiles of NBC Nightly News anchors.--Tash 16:09, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
I just tried adding that, with no problems. And I've just realise that I needn't have bothered, because if there was problem, you could not have posted it here on my talk page! Actually, it's not that simple, as the spam filter will reject an edit if (a) there is something in the edit that is in the spam list, or (b) there is something elsewhere on the page already that is in the spam list. However, the latter case can only occur if the page was last edited before the offending text was in the spam list, so seems unlikely to be the case here. I have to possible suggestions as to what happened:
  1. You meant to type what you've put above, but accidentally typed something else, something that was in the spam list.
  2. The spam list was altered to include something that was in your text or already on the page, and then altered (corrected?) to take that something out of the spam list again.
Either way, when it rejected your edit, the message should have told you what the offending word was. I don't suppose you took notice of and remembered that, did you?
Philip J. Rayment 21:35, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
No it didn't say what was blocking it up. I tried to do it twice and it gave the same "spam filter has blocked your edit" response each time. So no, I don't know what was causing the spam filter to activate for the edit. And other then the summary, "added nbc anchors template" the above text is all that I was attempting to put up. No cussing or anything:)--Tash 21:51, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
It seems that it will remain a mystery! Philip J. Rayment 21:56, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Mystery solved! BrianCo had the same problem. The problem only occurred if you were trying to edit the page as a whole (rather than the section) or the "Templates for talk pages" section, as that section had the word "vandalised" in it. When I tried it though, it did tell me that that was the offending word. Anyway, I've now fixed it so that it won't happen again there. Philip J. Rayment 00:32, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

  • One more crossed off my list (mysteries) now only 10,000 or so more to go! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:03, 23 July 2007 (EDT)


Thanks for taking care of that, Philip! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:25, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Template spam filter

Philip, looks like we cross-edited the offending word. I changed it to US spelling but I guess you put the <i></i> code in. Revert my edit if you like. BrianCo 00:35, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I just did! :-) Philip J. Rayment 00:36, 23 July 2007 (EDT)


Any reason for reverting the language entry by Jreyes? It was true. BrianCo 09:53, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

He created a page that was a clever piece of fiction, so was clearly a vandal. As a precaution, I reverted his other edits. You are free to reinstate his changes if you know that they are correct. Philip J. Rayment 09:59, 23 July 2007 (EDT)


For your suggestions on equation background colors. I'll look into it when I get chance.--Bayes 11:38, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Thank you! Best when it comes from you.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 10:09, 24 July 2007 (EDT)


Many people here regularly claim they are not biased - Wikipedia is clearly not biased because it is edited by the people at large - it has reached a pretty good equilibrium. You lot have brought 60 odd cases from 1.8 million articles. That is 0.00003% of wiki articles with a so called Liberal bias (And many of those accusations are absurd)

Want to compare your obvious bias? Its like you originally had a good and decent idea to combat liberal bias - to replace it with what, your own bias? Not seeing anything hypocrytical there? Not seeing that the entire point of this is a complete waste of time. Someday I'm going to be a university profressor - And I will ban any of my students who ever use this useless resource. Denzo 11:01, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I haven't seen many people here regularly claim that they are not biased. Wikipedia is biased, because some views (i.e. people with some views) have a stranglehold on some articles. See for example my post here.
Your maths is based on assuming that all the articles not mentioned are not biased. That is a logical fallacy.
No, there is no hypocrisy. The problem with Wikipedia is not its bias, but its claim to neutrality whilst having a bias. If they said up front that they had a liberal bias (like we say that we have a conservative bias), we would be a lot less critical of Wikipedia.
Philip J. Rayment 11:20, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia doesn;t have a policy supporting a Liberal bias. It has a neutrality policy. Even though most of the editors tend to be centre-left, they still maintain a neutral POV. You don't. You flaunt your own ignorance and you have a front page which regularly bashes Liberals and Democrats - This is nothing compared to Wikipedia. Wikipedia reports the news on its front page - without bias. Denzo 04:31, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

P.S - I'm surprised you could understand my math by the way. Denzo 04:33, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I agree that Wikipedia doesn't have a policy (explicitly) supporting liberal bias. I agree that it has a neutrality policy. But despite that policy, it has a bias that is maintained by systemic problems. And I have first-hand experience (an example of which I referred you to) where they don't maintain a neutral POV. Rather than refute my supporting evidence, you simply restated your assertions without any supporting evidence. Repeated assertions do not make something so. And what didn't I understand about your maths? Philip J. Rayment 04:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Wikilinking of dates

Above, on this very page, I just removed the wikilinks to dates. E.g., [[2007]] was replaced simply with 2007. I hope you don't mind. The reason I did this is because this was resulting in a desired article at the Special:Wantedpages log, and as far as I understand it, CP is not emulating the wikipedia custom of having articles for years and month/day combinations. I apologize if this edit was too intrusive. PheasantHunter 22:48, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

It's in readiness for when it does. Andy has agreed with the idea, but it hasn't been implemented yet. Philip J. Rayment 22:55, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Egad, oops, sorry, I have been doing a bunch of changes...time to revert I guess. Thanks for the heads up. PheasantHunter 22:56, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
  • News to me and Ed Poor. (As I am his spokesperson) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:57, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
After you guys get this sorted out, please let me know if I should revert all of the articles where I removed wikilinks from dates... PheasantHunter 23:10, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
No, don't revert them. I agree with you, PheasantHunter, that dead-end links to dates should be avoided. In fact, dead-end links in general are to be avoided unless it is so important that an entry must and will be created for that link.--Aschlafly 23:16, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. I am also concerned about the special wanted page being dominated by unwritten articles on Greek mythological characters. PheasantHunter 23:30, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Can you hold off doing anything with the dates until I sort this out with Andy, Please? Many of the entries on the Wanted Pages list are as a result of navigation boxes having those so-far-red links. Philip J. Rayment 23:41, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
No problem, I am neither continuing nor reverting my previous edits. However, I personally don't like the year articles...waste of effort in my opinion, if it is sought. PheasantHunter 23:57, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
The point of wikilinking the dates is so that they will show in the format preferred by the user, and if this preference includes putting the year first, the year needs to be wikilinked also (if I understand it correctly). Philip J. Rayment 00:10, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
What I meant to say is that I think having articles on years, such as at WP, is a waste of time. I expect others to disagree with me here, too, since this is a matter of opinion. PheasantHunter 00:19, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

  • This has been discussed in depth with Andy, and the decision is he would not like to see routine linking to all dates. Wikipedia overdoes this. It would be better to have special articles, such as 2007 in film or Current Events: 2007. I will be working with Philip, Aziraphale‎, PheasantHunter and Ed Poor to remove those routine date links. We need to trim the list of 22,000+ broken links in half, now that our category list is almost done. Andy has asked that Philip and I (with input from the other Administrators), go over the category list, and see what we can do with removing, adding or renaming categories as is appropriate. Aziraphale, your comments about this are specifically invited. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 13:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
I'm just pinging this conversation as having been read, since TK directed me here. I've got a half-formed plan in mind for the categories issue, just tell me where you'd like it shared (email addresses, one person or many, etc..) and I'll put something together for you. Aziraphale 16:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT) <-doesn't relish delinking dates...

christianity and science

I cant see any problems with my article, but if you believe that there is a problem with it, you should've pointed it out rather than threatening to ban me over it. Is it really such a problem if our views on the matter differ slightly? Besides, you are more than welcome to add to the article yourself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nobodyyouareawareof (talk)

I was prepared to point out some sample problems (a complete list would have taken too long; our views don't differ "slightly", but a lot) if you asked, but I wanted to be sure that I wasn't wasting my time. As it turns out, another administrator was able to make up his mind and has deleted the article (with the comment ""these Caucasian humans" is a racist statement; article also deleted as being too amatuerish"). I suggest that you confine yourself to less controversial edits until you convince us that you are here to help. Philip J. Rayment 07:58, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
I got rid of it. Adam and Eve are the two "Caucasians" he wrote into the article; but all in all there was absolutely no professionalism in the write up at all. He didn't even try. Karajou 08:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)


As a new contributor to conservapedia, the warm welcome has been overwhelming. Bye. Myrtle 08:10, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to see you go. Sure you won't reconsider? Philip J. Rayment 08:17, 25 July 2007 (EDT)


I noticed that TGlennRet tried to make some trouble on my talk page after he disagreed with my description of Lemon v Kurtzman. Thanks for preventing him from defacing my page. SSchultz 21:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

That user has been banned. Please feel free to make constructive edits in an environment free of that type of intimidation. Learn together 21:45, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I see you were recently on.

Could you move the Talk:James_Maxwell to the James Clerk Maxwell talk page. I made the James Clerk Maxwell article the main article, and the James Maxwell article the redirect. User:PheasantHunter/FullSig 01:37, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

It's all at James Clerk Maxwell now. Philip J. Rayment 03:31, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Thanks for jumping in and doing what he asked me to do, Philip...the user has no patience, it seems. But I did tell him I was going for a brownie! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:34, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Well, he did ask me first! :-). But yes, there was only about a quarter of an hour between the two requests, and I hadn't seen your talk page until just now. Philip J. Rayment 04:02, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
  • I reminded the user that we don't allow editors to make the decision on moving articles, and they should never undertake to do so without first getting approval. I reverted the moves. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 04:23, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Can't we just all get along? Anyway, none of this would have happened, and I would have cleaned up my own mess, had I the ability to move articles (and corresponding edit histories). I am not requesting this power, but TK, you need to remember that you're looking a gift horse in the mouth. CP contributors are doing CP a favor, not the other way around. User:PheasantHunter/FullSig 12:08, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

You requested rationale on James Mawell edits

PJR, you requested an explanation...I was fixing wikilinks to redirects and (supposedly) non existent articles. There were links to James Clerk Maxwell. I thought it was odd that CP did not have an article on Maxwell. I searched, and found you did, just not at James Clerk Maxwell. So I initially created a redirect from James Clerk Maxwell to James Maxwell. Then I (think I remember that I) fixed some links to avoid wikilinking to a redirect. Then I thought more about it, and guessed the convention was to have the article under his full name, and a redirect from his partial name. Anyway, it is all screwed up. Now we have, I think, two idential (and protected for some reason) articles on James Maxwell. Either way is fine by me, but I think a convention of having the article at the full name and a redirect from the partial name is as good as any. User:PheasantHunter/FullSig 12:06, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. Philip J. Rayment 12:10, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

We have a vandal actively vandalizing

Please check recent contributions log. User:PheasantHunter/FullSig 12:16, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Nevermind, DanH got it. User:PheasantHunter/FullSig 12:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)


I've created a new template (Template:Meet the Press moderators) for Meet the Press moderators. I've placed it in the Template Submission article, but haven't got a response for some time. I was wondering if you could check into it for approval, so that i can start adding it to the appropriate pages. Thanks, --Tash 11:15, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

I see that TK's taken care of this.
As long as a template complies with the commandments and guidelines (e.g. does not amount to vandalism, is not offensive, etc.), it can be considered as having my approval.
Philip J. Rayment 23:12, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

Yippie aye yo ki yay!

The number one search engine in the United States ranks our theory of evolution article #5 out of all articles written on that subject

I just found out that the number one search engine in the United States ranks the Conservapedia Theory of evolution article #5 out of about 26 Million articles written on that subject. That is why the article is likely getting the traffic it is now getting.

Here is some background:

"Yahoo is considered the number one search engine above all other search engines. Yahoo search queries make up approximately 28% of all search engine traffic. And just in raw traffic reported by Alexa rankings, Yahoo! demolishes competitors such as Google and MSN." taken from :

I found out from Google Ad Words that the phrase "theory of evolution" is about the most popular term to find information about that subject. It is way more popular than the word "evolution". Here is ad words:

As you can see can see Yahoo ranks our "Theory of evolution" article #5:

Conservative 18:45, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

I found it very hard to believe that Yahoo is the number one search engine, so I checked your link. True, the article does say that, but if you look at the first thread of comments, you will find a pretty good case to say that this is simply not so. That is, the claim appears to be based on the fact that Yahoo gets more hits that Google, but most of Yahoo's hits are not for its search engine, whereas most of Google's hits are for its search engine. Commenter Anonymous Loozah quotes Nielsen/NetRanking figures "showing Google with a 48% share of all searches. Yahoo! 22%".
I'm also a bit sceptical of the claim about the search phrase, but the link didn't work for me, possibly because I'm trying it at work. If I don't forget, I'll check that one out further at home tonight.
On a different matter altogether, could you please keep your headings short? Long headings make table-of-content boxes much wider than they should be, and they also take up a lot of room in edit summaries. They are supposed to be headings, not sentences.
Philip J. Rayment 23:22, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
I've now looked at the Google Ad Words link, but can't reproduce your results. Whether I set the country to Australia, United States, or All countries and territories, or the match type to broad, phrase, or exact, "evolution" is either ranked higher than "theory of evolution" or about the same. I'm also uncertain how relevant the information is; it's not designed to tell you what terms are searched for the most, but what terms will have the best results in placing ads on search pages. The results would seem to be related to the frequency of searches for those terms, but I'm not totally certain. The "best" results seem to be if the match type is set to "exact" (about equal results), and this does suggest to me that people search for "evolution" no more than searching for "theory of evolution" (but no less either). Philip J. Rayment 05:31, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Your comments at Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style

I've reinstated your conversation at Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style, seeing as how you did it, but were overturned by TK. --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğθαλκ 02:37, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. Philip J. Rayment 02:56, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
  • He was overturned by Andy. Live with it, or not. I am tired of trying to cater to people out of step with Conservative thought, who are more at home on Wikipedia. If like their ways so much, go and stay there. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 03:02, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
You have not claimed—and I would find it hard to believe anyway—that Andy has overturned each of several edits I made to that page and which you reverted without explanation, even when asked twice for an explanation. If you do want to claim that, please forward me the correspondence so that I can see for myself. Philip J. Rayment 05:35, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
  • I have in fact done just that...forwarded on Andy's thinking on this. You will stop posting publicly about policy issues. Per Andy. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 05:56, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
I have not received Andy's forwarded correspondence on this, and the only communication I've had at all was from you on the matter of the naming of articles, which is not what I've said remains unanswered. Philip J. Rayment 06:14, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

You will stop posting publicly about policy issues. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 07:00, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

I have. I'm posting about other issues, as I have now explained numerous times. Philip J. Rayment 07:02, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Anything that has anything to do with the actions another sysop takes, is a policy issue. Are you really so ignorant as to not understand that? Perhaps you should resign so you could have more freedom to question. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 07:07, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for stooping to name-calling. No, I do not understand that, and see no reason to think that is the case. And if it is, you are guilty of it also. Philip J. Rayment 07:15, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Horizontal CSS

Hey Mr Rayment, I brought this fairly innocuous proposal up on the main page's talk with no response - so given the ease and lack of impact from this edit I was wondering if you could edit either MediaWiki:Common.css or MediaWiki:Conserv.css to add a following class (of course this is assuming you have the ability to edit those pages). Thanks so much regardless (for the time), --Iduan 00:16, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

/* Style for horizontal UL lists */
.horizontal ul {
  padding: 0;
  margin: 0;
.horizontal li { 
  padding: 0 0.6em 0 0.4em;
  display: inline;
  border-right: 1px solid;
.horizontal li:last-child {
  border-right: none;
  padding-right: 0;

Iduan, could you please supply more information, such as how and where you would like to make use of this, and what it will look like (perhaps point me to where it is used on Wikipedia)? I don't have any concerns about the code itself, but before we start padding out the css pages that every user will be downloading, I'd like to make sure that it really is going to be something useful. Philip J. Rayment 08:35, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

As far as exact spots, that I can't say, but essentially what it does is allow for horizontal list - which could be useful in the template namespace. I found an instance where it was used for archiving here: Talk:Underground_Railroad--Iduan 10:25, 14 August 2007 (EDT)
I think it would be best if we left this until there was a clear need for it. Otherwise I expect that if we put this in the CSS file, it will sit there doing nothing except for being used on one or two pages in a way that could probably be achieved in a another way anyway. If you later have a specific use for it that cannot reasonably be done a different way, or we find that we are often making horizontal lists like that, we can reconsider it. Philip J. Rayment 11:10, 14 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Philip, it appears the user did what I instructed him not to do, and has shopped around to other sysops, one of which placed the CSS, without knowledge of your answer here. This is not the first time this user has done this, and gives me reason to be concerned about his honesty and intent. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:52, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Or perhaps the sysop concerned saw the original request on the main page talk page and decided to do it, without any further communication from or to the user who asked for it? Philip J. Rayment 22:14, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

No, as per usual, wrong. I asked the user to contact you or Ed. You answered, Ed did not. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 23:10, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

?? How does that prove your point? Philip J. Rayment 07:20, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Au revoir

Good day, my friend. I've enjoyed getting in, editing some, and watching the dynamics here. However, I don't think I'll be editing any further, and I figured I'd let you know my thoughts, for what they're worth: It seems to me that conservapedia has the same fundamental problems as wikipedia, only the bias is different. Just as wikipedia has a systemic bias to the left, conservapedia has a systemic bias to the right. I'm interested in writing neutral and comprehensive articles ... articles that reflect all points of view accurately without spinning either way ... but those type of articles don't seem to have a place on either wiki. The ironic part is this: All the controversial articles for which an alternative to wikipedia is necessary (creationism, atheism, etc, for instance) are very poor here, and are blocked from general editing (and the blocking admins are not responsive to even the most common sense suggestions); articles that are not controversial are not blocked -- but for those, wikipedia is much better, because of the sheer scope of editors involved, and the willingness of editors to maintain npov. That leaves no niche of articles for which conservapedia is particularly useful. I really would like to find a wiki that put npov into practice, but I guess that's not to be anytime soon. But thanks again for the invite, God bless you and yours, and I wish you all the best in your future endeavors! Ungtss 00:28, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Evolution Discussion

I was just wondering if perhaps we could bring that whole thing into a private conversation. I don't think it belongs in an article talk page anyways, but it's definitely interesting, and it has furthered mine (and hopefully your) understanding of both sides of the issue.

ATang 15:46, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Good idea; the thought was crossing my mind also. I've just created links to sub-pages of this page to continue the discussion, and the discussion on the Atheism talk page. But I'm out of time tonight to actually write a response. Philip J. Rayment 09:53, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Wiki help?

Hi Philip,

You've been a knowledgeable voice to me in the past, so I'd like to solicit your help with something. I'm trying to reach this article: Buckhannon_Bd._&_Home_Care,_Inc._v._West_Va._Dep't_of_Health_&_Human_Res. I suspect that the name of the article is a problem, because any attempt (that I can think of) to click on the article yields a blank page, but it clearly exists because I find it in the category page for US Supreme Court Cases. Can you think of a way to a)reach the article and b)rename it so that it can be navigated to normally?

Many thanks! Aziraphale 12:28, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Well share, because I cannot reach it either, and now you two have me very nosy indeed! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 14:23, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
What have I done to make you nosy?
I've renamed it to Buckhannon Bd. and Home Care, Inc. v. West Va. Dep't of Health and Human Res.. The ampersands were the problem. I renamed all articles with ampersands a while back, but this one has been created since.
Philip J. Rayment 20:08, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
And I've deleted the redirect under the old name. Nothing linked to it, except your link above. Philip J. Rayment 20:11, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Thanks! But yikes! All those articles in the wrong wonder Azi is so's job security! :p --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 20:14, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
Hi again, Philip,
Sorry if I made anybody nosy, like I said I just remembered you as being helpful (and here you are, being helpful again!) so I thought I'd bring this to you. Thanks for taking care of it. :) Aziraphale 00:59, 24 August 2007 (EDT)


I'm thinking of joining CreationWiki. What was your experience there like? Thanks. SkipJohnson 10:58, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Answered by e-mail. Philip J. Rayment 11:16, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the e-mail. It looks like I will need to think hard about joining. SkipJohnson 10:39, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
Could I also get your thoughts Philip? I would expect it would probably be more tightly controlled to make sure it stays Creationist, but I am interested in your perceptions. Thank you. Learn together 14:15, 7 September 2007 (EDT)


Philip, I'm trying to get rid of some red links and I noticed you had wikilinked the date of your latest archive. Since official policy is to not link any dates would you mind delinking them? Thank you so much. JazzMan 23:24, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Grrr, mumble, mutter... Yeah, okay. Done. Philip J. Rayment 23:31, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Ha ha ha thank you! You just made an OCD sufferer's night. :) JazzMan 00:06, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
OCD? Philip J. Rayment 06:28, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder:). Ungtss 09:55, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
Oh yeah. Those little red pages just cry out: "fiiiiiiiiix meeeeeeeee! fiiiiiiiiiiiiiix meeeeeeeeeeee!" JazzMan 16:35, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

I replied to your kind emails. Please note my main conservapedia email address has changed plus.....

I replied to your kind emails. Please note my main conservapedia email address has changed. I also put a note on the atheism talk page regarding my main objections to Ungtss methodology. Conservative 15:11, 1 September 2007 (EDT)


I could use your help with some bans here:

Thanks! Jinkas 11:28, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Looks like everything has been taken care of. Jinkas 11:35, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

I thought you might like this....

Evolution - A Fairy Tale For Grownups

Conservative 21:23, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

I couldn't get that to work in IE6, but it does in Firefox.
You know, that concept was, I believed, used as the introduction for a secular television program in Canada quite a few years ago. From what I recall being told, the program (about evolution I presume) started off with the narration: "If you believe that a frog can turn into a prince instantly, you believe in fairy tales. If you believe that a frog turned into a prince over millions of years, you believe in evolution".
Philip J. Rayment 00:11, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
That sounds like the evolutionary trinity talked about in this book (time, chance, and nature) R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, Inquiry Press (Midland, MI), 1976. ISBN 978-0-918-112-02-6[1] By the way, I would highly recommend the Sproul book recommended in the theory of evolution article. I am referring to this work: R. C. Sproul, Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology, Baker Book House: 1994[197][198] ISBN 080105852X

Conservative 19:46, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Not to tell you your business

I, too, have been following the developments at the arbitration page, (such as they are). I have been using its talk page to lend my voice to the fray. I was supposing that too many voices on the arbitration page might get the situation right back to the quandary the Atheism talk page was in. For what it's worth I find myself agreeing with your posts wherever I may find them. Samwell 00:07, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Golly, how flattering <blush>. But thanks for saying so. I share your concern, which is why I asked about it on the arbitration talk page first, where Aziraphale said it would be okay. I hope he withdraws that permission if it gets out of hand, though. Philip J. Rayment 00:14, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Dino article

The dinosaur article is pretty popular right now. Please see:

Conservative 14:24, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Arbitration Posted

Hi Philip,

Since you've been an interested observer, and (frankly) since I quote you, I thought you'd like to know that I've posted my findings to Andy's talk page. Hopefully I'm as in-agreement with you as I thought I was, otherwise quoting you will have been a bit rude. :p

Thanks for your input, I always appreciate what you've got to say. Aziraphale 17:37, 10 September 2007 (EDT) <- whew!

Thanks for your efforts. Your recommendations were very good. Philip J. Rayment 23:14, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, that means a lot to me coming from you. :) Aziraphale 23:24, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
Flattery will get you nowhere everywhere! Philip J. Rayment 23:35, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
Can I borrow 20 bucks? Aziraphale 23:44, 10 September 2007 (EDT) <-always pushes his luck too far...
Sorry, I don't have 20 male deer to loan you. :-( Philip J. Rayment 23:52, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
Doe! Aziraphale 00:06, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
<laugh> I can't top that one! Philip J. Rayment 03:04, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
I figured you'd set me up for it, it was so perfect. :) Aziraphale 10:19, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
No set-up. I'm not a Simpsons fan; I might have thought of it if I was. Philip J. Rayment 11:39, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
Fair enough. I'm not much of a Simpsons fan, either, but "d'oh" is so common that, if I recall correctly, it's now in the OED. Yikes. Aziraphale 11:53, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

quick question

Mr. Rayment, any interest in developing the militant atheism article? I think there is a lot of room to grow and given that we are Conservapedia I think there might be some interest in the article. Please see my talk page commentary for the article in question. Conservative 22:19, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't know that I'll be able to spend a lot of time on it, but I'll keep an eye on it and add to it as I can. Philip J. Rayment 23:15, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Bilby has left the building

I will not be contributing further to Conservapedia but, before leaving, I would like to thank you for the help you have offered in my "wiki" learning. I have found others to be less welcoming and, one in particular, to be just insulting (TK) and really have much better things to do than attempt to help out a project and just get insulted for it.

I might track you down next time I take the family on Puffing Billy and say hello as it would be nice to put a face to the words. I can be found at if you want to say hello. I know we differ in the way we view the world but the thing I had liked about this site was the fact that we could differ but still dialogue. That has now gone. --Bilby 19:40, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to see you go. I'll be the guard on Puffing Billy on the 12:20 p.m. Belgrave to Lakeside and return on Saturday 22nd September, in case you can make that. Philip J. Rayment 07:42, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

dino trafic should pick up - put dinosaurs and man coexisted art

dinosaur article trafic should pick up - put dinosaurs and man coexisted art. Conservative 22:16, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Where did you get that picture of the Nile Mosaic from? Philip J. Rayment 22:45, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Long War Against God quote

I read this quote from a non-authorative website:

"It was not only Darwin and Huxley, the two top evolutionists, who were racists. All of them were! This fact has been documented thoroughly in a key book by John Halter, appropriately entitled Outcasts from Evolution." — Henry M. Morris, Long War Against God (1989), pp. 60-81. [5]

Do you own this book and can you confirm the quote and cite the page?

Conservative 22:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't recall for sure if I own a copy or not. I'll have a look tonight (if I don't forget). Philip J. Rayment 22:48, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
I can't find a copy of this on my shelves, sorry. I might be able to find a copy elsewhere, but I don't know when I'll get to do that. Philip J. Rayment 07:38, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

I sent you a private email

I sent you a private email. Conservative 20:21, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Yup. Got it, thanks. Philip J. Rayment 21:04, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

CMI and AIG and Setterfield

Thank your for your helpful input in relation to the creation scientists consensus in relation to Mr. Setterfield's theory. While I do not disagree with you in light of the evidence you brought forth of these scientists disfavoring the idea, there appears to perhaps be some important nuance to the issue that perhaps you are not considering. I will be sending you something shortly on this issue and perhaps you might be interested in investigating it further. Regardless, a quick comment or more from you would be appreciated. Conservative 21:17, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Here is what I found at CMI regarding what the respected YEC scientists Dr. Keith Wanser stated: "Keith was familiar with the theories (including recent work) of Australian creationist Barry Setterfield, which have c declining from a huge initial value. He said, ‘I don’t go along with Barry’s statements on this; he’s well-meaning, but in my opinion he’s made a lot of rash assumptions. For instance, he has a whole sequence of things that have to be held constant just because his theory needs it, and he’s certainly not come up with any real equations explaining anything. There is not a lot of mathematical and physical theory in his work, and there’s a misunderstanding of many of the things that would have happened if c had been 1010 higher than what it is today.’10

From what Keith told us in more detail, it appeared that the vocal humanist/sceptic critics of the Setterfield theory also needed some lessons in high-level physics. He went on to say, ‘There are other reasons to believe that the speed of light is changing, or has changed in the past, that have nothing to do with the Setterfield theory. It’s an exciting field — a very bright colleague of mine at the University of Colorado in Boulder has just completed some little-known but fascinating work in this area.’11 (footnote 11 goes to: New Scientist, 24 July 1999, pp. 29–32)." [6]

Have any interest in looking up the New Scientist article? (do you have an online subscription) I am at a University library right now but the science section may be closed now. Conservative 21:32, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

I looked at the New Scientist article above and it was not very helpful. The focus of the article was that if the speed of light was faster in the past and then decreased its speed it would likely solve the horizon problem, lambda problem, and the faltness problems in regards to the Big Bang Theory and I assume you do not subscribe to the Big Bang Theory. Conservative 20:34, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
That's the point. Secular scientists are prepared to consider the possibility of a change in the speed of light if it solves their light-travel problems, but not if it solves a creationist light-travel problem. Philip J. Rayment 05:38, 17 September 2007 (EDT)


You probably don't get the CreationNetwork on cable TV in Australia but nevertheless there was a creationist scientist on that television program that said we don't have any fossil evidence of the various types of dinosaurs evolving. Our dino article is very popular now and I was wondering if you have any information regarding the fossil evidence or lack thereof at your disposal. I think it would be a great thing to add. Conservative 19:58, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't have cable TV at all, so I wouldn't know if it's available here or not.
The statement, if you've recorded it accurately, is interesting, because fossil evidence cannot show anything "evolving". That's like saying that a still photograph doesn't show a moving image.
If the claim is that there is no fossil evidence that the dinosaurs did evolve, then I would reply that, as a creationist, I don't believe that there's any meaningful fossil evidence that anything evolved. And that being a universal negative, it's a bit hard to show that, except by failing to show that there is evidence.
If the claim is that there is something special about dinosaur fossils that contradicts the evolutionary idea moreso than with other creatures, then I don't know specifically what that might be referring to.
Philip J. Rayment 22:38, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Country infoboxes

I thought I would embark on a standardized improvement of these infoboxes, but I am still not all that familiar with tables vs templates. I only did a few, but if they could be converted to whichever is better, than by all means we should go for it. I also want to apologize for including this blurb on your user page (by mistake!) has been corrected! Karajou 06:37, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Using the templates instead. They're pretty good. Karajou 10:15, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
Glad you like them! One of the main advantages of templates is the very thing that you say is your goal—standardisation. In one sense, a template is simply something that could be put directly in an article (such as a table) instead put in a separate "template" page where it can be included in an article by referencing it. On the other hand, in cases such as {{country}} where you can have optional parts, they can get rather complex. But if there's extra fields you'd like in the country infobox template and you don't feel comfortable adding them yourself, leave a note on the template talk page and I or someone can add it. We shouldn't just add extra fields willy-nilly, but neither would I suggest that they have everything that they should ever have. Philip J. Rayment 22:42, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
Minor problem with them that I ran into, and you can see it in the China article, is that there are no lines for the titles of "premier" and "chairman", at least for China's case and possibly a few other communist countries. I have also been putting the name of the country in that country's language, but would like to see if CP can adopt the Chinese writing system to display that as well. Karajou 16:29, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
I've added "chairman" and "premier" to the {{country}} infobox. I've not added "chairman-raw" or "premier-raw", but these can easily be added if required. Philip J. Rayment 23:01, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Further suggestions

This is what I ran into when adding info to the Bahamas, Belize, and a few others. There are titles such as "governor", "governor-general", i.e. the governor of a British territory; in addition, if the country template could be converted to a state or provincial template within a country, then these titles become more useful. There is also the title of "general secretary", used for communist countries. Since religion defines a country, a tag for that could be added as well. Karajou 09:32, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

I've been giving this some thought, and have concluded that, given the amount of overlap between countries and states insofar as what an infobox will have for them, the one template might as well cover both countries and states (and territories), for the present at least.
But to ease the transition to separate templates in the future (if in the future we decide to go that way) I've created a new {{state}} template, which simply redirects to {{country}} for now. So {{state}} should be used in preference to {{country}} when applied to articles about states, even though they both use the same template.
So I've added governor general, governor general-raw, governor, and governor-raw to the {{country}} template. And because premier will get more use now that it can be used for states, I've also added premier-raw. I missed general secretary; I better go back and add that also.
I'm not sure what you mean by religion "defining" a country—that sounds like a peculiarly-American view of things to me—and all countries have at least some people from several religions, even though in many cases one religion might predominate. So I'm not happy with a field simply for "religion", although one for "most popular religion" or similar is probably warranted. But then it might be worthwhile allowing for showing percentages of the population holding to different religions. I think I'll give that aspect a bit more thought before including a "religion" parameter.
Philip J. Rayment 22:49, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Welcome script

I borrowed your welcome script -- very cool! I did have some problems, though. I don't know if I'm doing something stupid (which is very likely) or if it's some kind of bug.

For some reason I couldn't get it to work formatted on three lines so I just removed the line breaks (and the requisite concatenation). Now it works, but I have two welcome tabs! I use the conserv skin, so I created User:HelpJazz/conserv.js. I'm using Maxthon and Windows Vista, if that helps. Oh, I also added the script in monobook.js (because conserv wasn't working) but I don't think that's the problem.

Thanks! HelpJazz 23:24, 13 November 2007 (EST)

You should find that it only puts the tab there once now. I managed to reproduce your problem, and it now works okay for me.
The code adds a hook into the software to call a routine whenever a page is loaded. It seems that the Conserv skin calls this page-load hook twice for each page it loads, so the code to add the tab is run twice. I've now altered the code to check for the tab already being there, and if it is, to not add it a second time. It's possible that you might need to clear your cache or something to get this to work.
What was the problem with it not working on three lines? Did you actually try running it, or was it just that the /conserv.js page didn't display properly? If the latter, try the three lines again but put //<pre> on the line before the code and //</pre> on the line after the code, and let me know what happens. If that fixes it, I'll change the instruction page.
Philip J. Rayment 05:48, 14 November 2007 (EST)
Thank you so much! Everything works fine now. I think it did work on three lines, but I just didn't realize that the tab didn't show up until you went to edit a page. I changed it back to three lines and it seems to be working now. Thanks again -- HelpJazz 17:14, 14 November 2007 (EST)

I just sent you a private email that I think you will be very interested in

I just sent you a private email that I think you will be very interested in. Conservative 22:02, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks, but I do check my e-mails fairly regularly, so there's no need to say it here, especially twice. I'll read it when I get home from work. Philip J. Rayment 22:20, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Dear Phillip

You are a reasonable man, probably the most reasonable here. I have sent an important email to Andy - Use your common sense to persuade him of that messages genuinity. I believe something big will happen, within the next week, and you will be essential to countering it.

Your friend,

Denis. Niallofthenine 09:23, 23 November 2007 (EST)

How can I do that if I have no idea what's in the e-mail? Philip J. Rayment 09:25, 23 November 2007 (EST)
(Niallofthenine subsequently forwarded the e-mail to me. Philip J. Rayment 21:07, 25 November 2007 (EST))

Succession template

Philip, you have linked the dates in this template so that a lot now appear in the list of wanted pages. I thought that it was CP policy not to have date and year pages (I may be mistaken). Perhaps you could review the situation as I am having a look how we can reduce the number of wanted pages. BrianCo 09:47, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Philip in addition, the Template:{{Afd deleted}} links to the article that has been deleted thereby producing a red link. I know it's not your template but could you have a look at it as well. BrianCo 10:17, 25 November 2007 (EST)
An here's another one Template:User_enAmer has a link to En:English language which appears in the most wanted list. I'd fix these myself but as you know all templates are locked. BrianCo 11:13, 25 November 2007 (EST)
It's a bit late after removing lots of red-link dates to realise that you "might be mistaken"! But you are not mistaken. It was not policy when that template was created, and in fact at one stage the software fix to allow date links to show according to the users' preferences was going to be installed.
Anyway, I've fixed all three for you.
Philip J. Rayment 21:03, 25 November 2007 (EST)