User talk:1990'sguy

Thanks for adding your edits, hopefully you'll become a regular contributor. If I can help you out with anything let me know. Progressingamerica (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

Thank you! --1990'sguy (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

Account promoted to skip the Captcha requirement. Thanks for your enlightening edits to Examples of Bias in Wikipedia.

Congratulations!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2016 (EDT)

Thank you! --1990'sguy (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2016 (EDT)

Congratulations and welcome. You should be aware that people who edit at both CP and WP with the same user name are sometimes harrassed at WP as a result. JDano (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2016 (EDT)

Thank you for the welcome and thanks for the heads up! I've already received some heat on Wikipedia for taking some unpopular positions and opposing the bias there, so it will be nothing new for me. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2016 (EDT)

I saw your helpful addition to the article on Murder of Seth Rich, so I thought I would visit your talk page. How long have you lasted on the WickedPedia? I would be surprised that you would last long there, as I have found the WickedPedia incredibly intolerant and censorious, a pseudo-aristocracy with dominating bullies, biased enough for me to consider it a candidate for the Big T award (T in the Calvinist TULIP); i.e, total depravity! LOL I don't think you can do much on Wikipedia without being part of a group of old boys or buddies who work together. (Thunkful2 (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2016 (EDT))

Did you mean my Wikipedia talk page? I have been editing Wikipedia for almost three years already. A big reason why I've lasted so long there is because many of the topics I edit are not particularly controversial. However, you are completely right in your description of Wikipedia. I have seen firsthand the massive (and very visible) intolerance and bias Wikipedia has against conservatives, Christians, and anything that contradicts secular and humanistic (pseudo)"scientific knowledge". I could probably write a book about all my criticisms of Wikipedia. I have been able to do some good work (I was able to bring the article "Electoral history of Ronald Reagan" to official "Good Article" status, and I created a few articles), but on other articles, like the Murder of Seth Rich, we cannot have much confidence on the quality and neutrality of those articles. I do applaud you, Thunkful2, for your excellent work on "Murder of Seth Rich". It's awesome that at least one person can accurately present this story! :) --1990'sguy (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2016 (EDT)

I meant right here, this talk page -- I visited it after seeing your good edit. No, I haven't gone to your talk page on the WickedPedia. Thanks for the complement. (Thunkful2 (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2016 (EDT))

OK, got it. And thanks for your complement. :) --1990'sguy (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2016 (EDT)

While it's not really plagiarism to copy a reference from WP, it just want to point out that you probably shouldn't do so unless you have read that source, and believe that it supports what is being said. If you are reading the books you are referencing, that's fine--I just can't tell. --David B ^(TALK) 23:33, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

Oh, that's a good point. I actually did not read those books, I just wanted to cite something so I wouldn't be adding unsourced info to the article. Should I remove those references anyway? --1990'sguy (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

It is a good idea to find references to support unsourced statements, but it is a little deceptive to cite something you haven't read. To be entirely beyond reproach, removal probably would be best. At this point though, I honestly don't know if I'd bother. In my opinion, it's up to you. No one else has said anything, so it might be okay to leave them, I'm just not sure. --David B ^(TALK) 23:51, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

OK. I will do my own research and find other sources that I can use instead. However, it's getting late, so I will deal with that tomorrow. Thanks for your help! --1990'sguy (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

Your account has been promoted to include blocking and overnight editing capability. Congratulations!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

Congratulations! --David B ^(TALK) 00:57, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

Well done! AlanE (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

Thanks all! I really appreciate it! --1990'sguy (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

Excellent! you did good keeping an eye on that vandal yesterday. Progressingamerica (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

Thanks, Progressingamerica, I appreciate it! --1990'sguy (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

Re: Christoph Blocher

Typically, when I want to read a WSJ article that requires subscriber sign in is to Google the headline and access the web page from a search engine instead of directly. Most of the time this requires a clean browser tab, sometimes it needs to be done in a different browser. Rarely, it requires a cookie clearing. Just thought that information may be of help. This even works with articles that are years old.

As a last resort, see if its in the internet archive.(though, most articles I don't want that bad to keep trying) But they're all good procedures to know. Sometimes works for other news sites too, besides WSJ. Progressingamerica (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

Thanks for the tip! That's what I will do. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

Your account has been promoted to include upload and rollback features. Congratulations!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

Thanks! I really appreciate it! --1990'sguy (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

Congratulations! Keep it up! --David B ^(TALK) 19:31, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

Thanks David! --1990'sguy (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

You can post your move and unlock requests to User talk:Karajou. PeterKa (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

Thanks for the tip! It's getting late, so I will do that tomorrow. I appreciate it! --1990'sguy (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

You don't actually need any privileges to do a move. You can cut-and-paste from one lemma to another. For purposes of copyright law, the edit summaries must make it clear where the incoming material comes from. PeterKa (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

People should not be judged in race on alleged sexuality. A proper critique of Karajou would be asking him about blocking a user who expressed views supporting the Presidential candidate who is not a sexual preditor.--Rodgerr (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

If you think you have been judged unfairly, you could have just emailed Karajou or webmaster@conservapedia.com (see Conservapedia:Guidelines#Member Accounts). However, more than once, you decided to take the low route, calling him filthy, immature words [1]. See Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks. And why in the world did you do this? [2] (for someone who apparently abhors Trump for the tape, your words seem just as bad) That, honestly, is shameful. I will note that the "Bringreaganback" account clearly violated Conservapedia:90/10 rule. Considering all this, it's quite clear you deserved the block. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

In response to your good question about entries on Mainpageleft, currently there are about 112 featured entries there, which are "reshuffled" periodically. Do you have any suggestions about how that "team" of entries be improved, with respect to insight, influence, popularity, interest level, educational value, etc.? It's a terrific mix of topics now but there is always room for improvement, particularly as the issues and interest in certain topics by the public inevitably shifts over time. Thanks much for any suggestions you may have.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

An example: "Underrated Sports Stars" is a solid entry, but should probably be replaced on Mainpageleft. Do you have any favored, influential, insightful, potentially or already popular entry that you like, which you would recommend to replace it?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

I do have a few suggestions. Murder of Seth Rich is probably the best suggestion, as it is very detailed and well sourced. Also, the Wikipedia article of the murder has been the victim of leftist bias (two times, within a month, editors have tried to delete the article, and with that failing, the article appears to have been stripped of much detail) which our article covers well. Other suggestions that I have are the Ark Encounter (a popular and influential attraction, and one that has been the victim of atheist and evolutionary bias, which the article covers), and Larry McDonald (a true patriot who stayed true to his principles, and his article actually covers the theories on his possible survival). --1990'sguy (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

Congratulations, your account has been promoted again, so that you can edit protected articles, and protect and unprotect articles. Very well done!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2016 (EST)

Wow! Thank you very much, Mr. Schlafly! I really appreciate it! --1990'sguy (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2016 (EST)

Congratulations! I've had some problems with the "protect" privilege, but I hope it works for you! --David B ^(TALK) 01:35, 12 November 2016 (EST)

Thanks! I hope so too! --1990'sguy (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2016 (EST)

Congratulations on yet another promotion. JDano (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2016 (EST)

Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2016 (EST)

Hi again, 1990'sguy, it's Ambassador. Is there any reason I can't edit the article on the Big Bang? To keep atheists from changing it, I suppose. If you have access to it, you might want to add the point about the Big Bang, due to planets and moons spinning backwards, contradicting the law of Conservation of angular momentum. Find out about it here. Thanks! Ambassador (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2016 (EST)

Yes, the article is protected probably because of atheist/secularist/liberal vandalism. Unfortunately, I cannot edit it myself as I do not have full admin capabilities. I recommend asking an admin (list) to unlock the article or add the information you want added. Or, you can go to the main talk page and add your request there, where more people can see it. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2016 (EST)

Hello there, and thank you for editing the article on Islam and Christianity. --SWAJCAHL&S (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2016 (EST)

No problem, and thank you for creating it! --1990'sguy (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2016 (EST)

And also thank you, for your help - and tips! - on Jared Kushner. I'll try to remember the ref's and cat's in the future. --Ed Poor (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2016 (EST)

Sounds great and you're welcome! --1990'sguy (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2016 (EST)

I added a bit on the talk page a while ago. PeterIceHockey (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2016 (EST)

Do you mean on the section "Ptolemy's view of a stationary earth"? --1990'sguy (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2016 (EST)

Sorry for the late reply but yes. It doesn't seemed to have created a new heading so I will add that now. PeterIceHockey (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2016 (EST)

I removed it. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2016 (EST)

This is User:Amorrow. I had to dirty myself by creating a sockpuppet because you cut off every last channel of communication. The issues:

1. SSN of dead people are release by the government of the USA. I made it clear that my father is dead. His name was William Knight Morrow. You can find his name and SSN, for instance, at this page. It is public, not private.
2. You could have removed that link and let it go at that. I do not require notification of such actions. I do not care about that link very much. I put it there simply as a convenience.

Is the matter resolved? If so, then please unblock me or let me know here what remains unresolved.--Amorrow2 (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2016 (EST)

I am discussing the issue on User talk:DavidB4. You are welcome to join in. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2016 (EST)

You are unblocked. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2016 (EST)

Thanks for the ref [3]. --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:34, 18 December 2016 (EST)

You're welcome. Always happy to help! --1990'sguy (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2016 (EST)

You're not telling me it's just a coincidence, are you? JohnZ (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2016 (EST)

Seriously? It is extremely unlikely that this passage, which is about the Second Coming of Christ, has anything to do with Donald Trump. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2016 (EST)

Dang :( Thought I'd had my first ever conservative insight. Must be the morphine. JohnZ (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2016 (EST)

I think this has more to do with biblical hermeneutics than conservatism. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2016 (EST)

Thank you for all your contributions to Conservaoedia as far your web article content.

Merry Christmas! And have a happy New Year's Day. Conservative (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2016 (EST)

Thank you very much, Conservative, and the same to you as well! --1990'sguy (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2016 (EST)

I suggest doing the redirect in the opposite direction for two reasons. First, it preserves the history and visits to the pre-existing entry. Second, it leaves intact the "Saint" spelled out, which is a stronger and more effective title than the secularized abbreviation. I'd be happy to change the direction of the redirect, if you agree. Regardless, thanks for your efforts!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2016 (EST)

Yes please, Mr. Schlafly, that would be great if you would move it. Just as long as the article shows up as being created by me on the "New Pages" feed. I didn't know that this article already existed, but I worked hard on it and I think that my article is of higher quality by any objective measure. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2016 (EST)

I was thinking of doing an article on the European immigration problem (don't want to call 'European immigration crisis', yet). Americans are woefully ignorant of what's happening in Europe, and we're looking at doing perhaps the biggest change in Immigration law since 1952. In Europe, whole new political parties have been spawned because of the establishment parties failure to deal with the problems. In 20 years, the German mi!itary may be majority Muslim which would impact the future of the NATO alliance. Better get started now in educating the American public on changing demographics and how this may affect America's role as a Superpower, assuming it still is by then.

Would you care to collaborate? RobS^{#NeverHillary} 01:39, 29 December 2016 (EST)

Of course, I'll be happy to help! --1990'sguy (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2016 (EST)

Do you think we should add a subsection under UK about Brexit and to what extent that was motivated by immigration? Also, I'd like to include something about the Schengen Agreement. RobS^{#NeverHillary} 16:46, 29 December 2016 (EST)

Both of those are great ideas. The "freedom of movement" EU policy played a large part in the referendum and its aftermath. People are tired of unlimited immigration.

As for the Schengen area, people can go anywhere they want in Europe without worrying about border security (and before, it was quite tough crossing the border I've heard). The agreement is an essential part of the EU plan to reach full political unification. It really has nothing to do with economics. Also, criminals and terrorists can easily cross the border. The recent Berlin attacker was caught in Italy. He crossed at least two borders without being caught. Imagine if he tried doing that without the agreement. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (EST)

Same as most of suspects in 1200 reported sexual assault cases New Years Eve in Cologne. Something like only 7 or 22 arrests have ever been made, while most of the other identified suspects are reported to have fled the country.RobS^{#NeverHillary} 17:06, 29 December 2016 (EST)

I created Social Security Death Index. After I add some ref's, I hope that we can revisit the notion of me declaring what my father's SSN is.

Just to mention where I got this idea from, it is from the web site anusha.com . Sloan has lived an erratic and at times immoral life, but he is just below the level of genius in raw talent. I refer to him as an "accidental adventurer". Please see thermo4thermo.org/sam_sloan.html for some of his life-adventures. I am not promoting his lifestyle, but he is my publisher for my upcoming book. His web site is a mess. It has about 3000 pages but just a mess of cross-references. The home page is very, very long. You can look at pages like www.anusha.com/pafc147.htm . He also has pages like www.anusha.com/uncles-p.htm . His memory is almost perfect. Near Total Recall. Anyway, I hope we can engage in dialog about my father's SSN.--Amorrow (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2017 (EST)

Dear 1990'sguy, I am not trying to get into an edit war with you, but I believe that you are misreading the hate crime laws. They do not address "hate speech," just violence or other criminal acts against target groups that receive a lot of hate. I suggest that you do further research, and I hope that you will come to the same conclusion. Thanks, JDano (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2017 (EST)

For clarification, are you telling me that hate crime laws do not cover "hate speech"? Regardless, I think we should mention that slowly (but steadily) speaking out for biblical Christian principles (opposition to homosexual marriage, saying Islam is a false religion, etc.) is being seen as "hate speech" and vulnerable to being criminalized. See this recent story[4] and please note the recent attempts to censor Christian sermons in Houston (I don't know if other cities did the same). Censorship of Christian and conservative opinions is growing, and I could a few (but probably unrelated to hate crimes) examples. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2017 (EST)

Also, while you can keep you additions, would you please restore the material you deleted in this edit (particularly those three completely deleted paragraphs)? --1990'sguy (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2017 (EST)

Thank you for fixing the dead link and finding an additional source. You are exactly right. Hate crime and hate speech are completely different. All Conservatives disapprove of speech codes, "safe spaces policy" and political correctness. The First Amendment is clear that regulation of speech must be neutral as to the message. The person(s) who wrote the Hate crime article years ago got a bit tangled up. Liberals want hate speech codes, and Conservatives oppose them. Both Liberals and Conservatives have voted to enact true hate crime laws to protect religious freedom and to address hate violence on the basis of race. Some Conservatives argue that the list of hate targets in those laws should not include "sexual orientation," but that argument does not belong in a section discussing protecting religion.

I took out the two paragraphs because they were repetitive, out-of-place and not germaine. Why not add them to Hate speech? Thanks, JDano (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2017 (EST)

Thank you for clarifying and for moving the content. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2017 (EST)

You are welcome. Our discussion here was a bit time delayed. JDano (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2017 (EST)

If you want to include the legislative history, it should explain which bill that was finally adopted that is being discussed and how the bill that was adopted differs from the earlier bills. The people that worked on this article years ago were obviously opposed to a series of bills and were making arguments on why a bill would be bad. Their narative is out of date. We have a number of state and federal hate crime laws on the books and we need to describe what exists, give facts and statistics about how the laws work, and include some commentary on whether the law has been applied fairly. If you want to expand the history section beyond the two sentences that I have explaining how the federal law expanded the role of the FBI, please do so. But the fact that certain people sponsored bills that did not pass before a bill did pass is not helpful unless you explain what changes were made or how the early efforts illumniates our understanding of the bill that passed. JDano (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2017 (EST)

If these proposed bills became law, we should definitely include this (even if we word it differently). We should do this in order to inform the public about leftist laws and to show that they didn't always exist. Unfortunately, I am quite busy right now, so I cannot do anything about this at the moment. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2017 (EST)

1990sguy, these bills did not become law. A similar bill later became law. JDano (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2017 (EST)

Not to sidetrack your guys discussion, but let me point out (cause the media hasn't) we have just witnessed something very rare and unusual in the US. Traditionally, because of state sovereignty, the states prosecute murder cases and federal government's role is restricted, for most of our history, to capital cases in the US military. In the 20th century federal crimes like murdering the president, or terrorism on federal property causing death (Timothy McVeigh), were added. This guy, Dylann Roof, has just been sentenced to death for violating peoples civil rights with a hate crime enhancement, and not for murder. The federal government does not have the legal authority to try this as a murder case. In fact, Roof probably never will be tried for murder cause the State of South Carolina isn't gonna spend the time and money to do it after the feds are done. In my lifetime, I think this is only the fourth case like this I ever heard of, tho I'm sure there's been a few others. RobS^{Make Exxon Great Again} 22:37, 13 January 2017 (EST)

Rob, this happened a lot in the 1960s. Civil rights workers would go South and were murdered and either the murder was not prosecuted or a local jury would acquit the accused. The FBI would then investigate and the US DOJ would successfully prosecute for civil rights violations in Federal Court. The question is whether there is enough of a commerce clause basis to allow for the passage of such federal crimes, and the courts have upheld them on the grounds that if the federal government did not prevent such intimidation, people would not feel safe crossing state lines. Also, many states have suspended or abolished the death penalty, while it remains available in federal court. State "sovereignty" is very limited and not actual sovereignty in the legal sense. To me, this is a more interesting aspect of the Hate crime article than whether or not the definition should be expanded to include "gender identity." JDano (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2017 (EST)

I'm not sure it happened "a lot". There was the 'Mississippi Burning' case, where the local cops and others were charged with civil rights violations, but no one served more than a six year sentence. This is why "hate crime" legislation was added later, cause sentences were too light for a "civil rights violation resulting in death". The problem in those days were all-white juries exonerating murder cases, so the feds invented a way they could prosecute killers. One guy was convicted in a state trial 40 years later in 2005 of manslaughter, but he wasn't the trigger man. No one has ever been charged with the actual killings.

Then there was Salt Lake City case of a civil rights violation resulting in death in 1978, but Utah was never part of the Confederacy, was not put under federal scrutiny in the Voting Rights Act, nor has a history of all-white jurries exonersting whites accused of murdering blacks.

In the 1990s, Brian Beckwith was convicted of violating Medgar Evers civil rights by killing him in the 1970s.

In the 90s Timothy McVeigh was the first person executed by the federal government since, like 1956. But this was a terrorism charge resulting in death, not a civil rights violation, AFAIK. (McVeigh was only charged with 8 counts of murder, although 168 were killed). Since McVeigh, there's been maybe one or two other cases of people executed by the federal government.

Bottomline, the federal hate crime enhancement was added cause, while the feds proved they could get a conviction where the state failed to act, the penalty was too low. Since its inception, it's hard to find a single case that the law was used for what it was designed for. There is no evidence whatsoever that South Carolina would not prosecute Dylann Roos, or an all-white jury would have exonerated him if the feds failed to intrude. South Carolina has lost its right to govern itself, its sovereignty. RobS^{Make Exxon Great Again} 06:32, 14 January 2017 (EST)

If this is true, then it definitely should be added. It would give yet another ignored example of massive governmental expansion and movement towards socialism. JDano, if the 2009 proposal did not become law, then what did the actual law consist of? If the bill that was listed on the article did not become law, then there is no point in including it. However, a legislative history of successful bills would be good. However, I am still quite busy, so I will not attempt to do anything about this at the moment. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2017 (EST)

I will provide the details you seek when i get some time. You were in the top 5. --Jpatt 10:19, 16 January 2017 (EST)

Thank you for the reply Jpatt! --1990'sguy (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2017 (EST)

I am continuing the discussion on my talk page.--Amorrow (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2017 (EST)

What would be the best word to describe Eurosceptic's opponents? Eurocentric? Pan European? Some other? I don't like globalist in this context. RobS^{Make Exxon Great Again} 12:42, 28 January 2017 (EST)

I would say either "Europeanists," "Europhiles," or "Euro-Federalists" are the best. They either seem to be the most used terms. Of those three, I would personally opt for the first. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2017 (EST)

Hi, I've noticed you sometimes change blocks by other admins to increase the time or make in infinite. I appreciate your intentions, but just thought I would point out a couple things. Firstly, the blocking admin generally has the final say over the block they have imposed. For example, if a person want to dispute the ban, they are to go to the blocking admin, and that admin decides whether to revoke the ban or not (as can be seen here). Since you are not revoking a block, it's probably not as big of an issue, but it still seems to be proper etiquette. Of course, full admins have authority over assistants such as you and I, so they have the right to direct revise of revoke blocks we make.
Secondly, While it makes good sense to block those people forever, it doesn't really work that way. A ban applies to the username, and the IP from which they edited if the option is selected--nothing more. Vandals almost always use servers to redirect their connection, however, so that their true IP is never seen by CP. This means that when we block those users, we are really just blocking the server they were using. This is a good thing too, but the problem is that these servers are usually assigned new IPs periodically, so the block no longer applies--now the blocked IP is unassigned. Since most people in the western world still use IPv4, there are not that many spare IP addresses, so the IP is soon assigned to someone else. Now some innocent person is using an IP which for all eternity has been blocked on CP. They probably will never even know, but if we set infinite blocks enough, the chances of that happening regularly increase continuously. I know some people here do use infinite block regularly, but in my opinion its a logistical problem. This is why I almost always set a time limit, or block only the username infinitely, and leave the IP unblocked (which I prefer not to do). Thanks for your ongoing efforts! --David B ^(TALK) 22:05, 31 January 2017 (EST)

Yikes, I should have thought of that. The thought of indefinitely blocking innocent people from CP certainly is not a good thing. If you haven't reverted by block change, feel free to undo it. I'm too busy right now to do it myself. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2017 (EST)

The chances of that happening from a couple blocks are pretty low, but it can add up. Anyway, no harm done. I just thought I'd mention it. Thanks! --David B ^(TALK) 22:24, 31 January 2017 (EST)

Gainful employment. Yes. I dare you to.--Amorrow (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2017 (EST)

Why? What's the purpose of you messaging me? --1990'sguy (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2017 (EST)

It's open for you to make your suggested additions. As to the Leif Ericson image, what needs to happen is a new image uploaded in its place. I'll try to find one later. Karajou (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2017 (EST)

New Leif image uploaded and added to article. Karajou (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2017 (EST)

Thank you. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2017 (EST)

Hello again, Regarding the Addiction article and specifically its categories, I agree with JDano. Let me attempt to explain:

"TAR" is short for TheAmericanRedoubt a former user and assistant SysOp here at Conservapedia. People have differing opinions of him, but mine is that he did offer some valuable contributions, but also did not understand and did not learn the rules of CP. Among some other issues, he tended to add many "See also" links to articles which were not sufficiently relevant and did the same with categories. Thus, when editors refer to "TAR" they are usually talking about this debris, which should not exist. TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) has since stopped editing here, and his account has been deleted. However, some of the links and categories he inserted still exists, and make things look messy. For this reason, a number of editors (including myself) try to clean up these issues and restore a little more order. The guide page Conservapedia:How to create and maintain high-quality articles was the direct result of TAR's methods.
Regarding the categories specifically, it's best to maintain a "tree" structure. A page should not connect to categories which also contain subcategories it links to. Also, it should link only to categories which contain it, not categories which the page topic can contain. In other words, a page "drug" should be in the category "medicines" but not in a category "antibiotics".
I hope this clarifies a bit. --David B ^(TALK) 00:42, 13 February 2017 (EST)

Please allow me to apologize for my impatience with the "addiction" article. You accidentally stepped into the remains of a hornets' nest. TAR added lots of utterly irrelevant see-also's and categories, in what can only be described as an attempt to turn this wiki into survivalist-pedia, or perhaps James-Wesley-Rawles-pedia. He offended a huge number of people with his implications that we were all supposed to stockpile bullets, batteries, and other survivalist stuff (I could look it up but it's too nauseating) and move to a "redoubt" in Idaho or similar place while we wait for the apocalypse. We were also all supposed to be into some kind of crackpot Indian alternative medicine. (I think it was called "ayurvedic" or something like that; once again too nauseating.) The whole wiki was in an enormous uproar for a few months. (And Cons, who really doesn't subscribe to that stuff, nevertheless stirred up the pot by pretending to be in email contact with the guy.)

So if you see suspicious see-also's or categories, especially with codewords like "nanny state" or "gun-grabbing", be aware this might be detritus from TAR. I support the second amendment, but I don't support putting all this survivalist garbage into an article on fire hydrants.

SamHB (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2017 (EST)

It has taken a huge amount of work to undo TAR's damage. I suppose that you think that there is a bias against any change he had made, and there is probably some truth to that. He did not understand that our categories have a tree structure. Instead, he thought of categories as a word association test. Putting in excess categories and excessive red links makes Conservapedia less appealing to users and lowers our google search engine rankings. In theory, every article could be in every category, because there is some plausible connection between any two subjects. If we had a separate article on "Drug Addiction" then it could have categories like Category:Illegal Drugs or Category:Drugs. The problem is that Category:Illegal Drugs is a subcategory of Category:Drugs breaking up the category tree with an infinite loop. Here the Addiction article is on a much higher level that discusses video games, etc. So, it is not useful to a high school student looking for information about illegal drugs, in my opinion. JDano (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2017 (EST)

Thank you all for your explanations. Considering these things, I will try not to get in the way next time this clean up occurs. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (EST)

You helped make THIS happen.

I have never seen a non-profit website go from below 100,000 rank to nearly a 50,000 Alexa ranking in about a year. And Andy payed zero dollars for internet marketing services during this period.

And there is no sign of a nearing web traffic plateau. My guess is that Trump supporters/Trump era and the resulting political waves significantly explains the boost in traffic.

Trump supporters seem very loyal so the traffic boost could be long lasting. It also seems like there is a reawakening of right-wing politics/nationalism that will be long lasting. And right-wing populism and "best of the public" go together like peanut butter and jelly. :) Conservative (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2017 (EST)

You're welcome, and thank you for all your edits! I'm happy to help improve the quality of Conservapedia. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2017 (EST)

Dear Guy: Our state articles list the members of Congress from each state, but they have not be updated for 2016. If five editors could update 10 states each, we would be done quickly. Could you please take a look at Conservapedia:Community Portal#Political directory? Thanks in advance, JDano (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2017 (EST)

Thank you for your help with the project and with People's Party. JDano (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2017 (EST)

Thanks for your terrific work. One tip: the licensing information should be expressly included in the uploads. I added it here: . Thanks again for your edits and uploads.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2017 (EST)

Thank you for the tip. I will remember to add the information next time. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2017 (EST)

Try working on it now. Karajou (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2017 (EST)

A few months ago, you told me to ask you any questions I had, so here goes:

• When recategorizing the massive and messy [Category:Authors] by nationality, I found two authors, Theo Hobson and Carl Sagan, whom I could not recategorize as [Category:American Authors]. Could you change them for me?
• When fixing the Francois Rabelais cedilla mess, I set up a redirect. Has anyone ever made a loop out of redirects? If so, what happened? I'm scared to try it.
• Lastly, where is my attention now best sent - expanding the author articles, improving our coverage of science and mathematics, or maybe tackling another recat job, like [Category:Music]?

1) Concerning Theo Hobson and Carl Sagan, those articles are protected, and as an assistant sysop, I do not have the ability to edit them. I recommend asking someone like User:Karajou or CP's owner, User:Aschlafly to either unlock the articles to allow you to fix the category or to have them change the cat themselves. I've made many similar requests to them and they will be happy to help.

2) I have not heard of someone doing that before. I personally don't think anything bad would happen if someone did try it, as you can still access the actual redirect page to remove the loop.

3) Honestly, all three choices are great. If I were you, I would probably choose to expand the articles already created so that the average reader would find them more interesting and worthwhile, rather than just seeing a stub. After that, I would personally move on to work on another category, so that CP is better-organized. Then after that, I would do math and science, which is (as far as I can tell) on a different theme than your other work. This is my personal preference, but if you would prefer doing it in a different order feel free! You have been very helpful to CP, and I appreciate your work. Keep it up! :) --1990'sguy (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

Hi, just a quick note: A redirect loop shouldn't be a problem. I think the user is only redirected once, so after that they see the second redirect page. Redirect loops, double redirects, and dead redirects should all be avoided when possible. Thanks for your contributions! --David B ^(TALK) 20:23, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

You are entirely correct, DavidB4; I just tried a loop with soda and pop (and removed it). Typing one would give you the page for the other, and an option to redirect. I'll proceed to expand the author pages now. Feel free to removed this section to abridge the talk page.--Abcqwe (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2017 (EDT)

Could you please write this important article: Atheism and ethics?

I may ask another writer or tow to contribute to it also. Conservative (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

Yes, I think I will be able to find some time to do it. Unfortunately, I have other things on my to-do list (even for CP), but this article is important, and I will try to find time to help. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

OK. Thanks. I think User:Pokeria1 will be assisting you. Conservative (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

Sources to help you write an article

• Would human life be sacred in an atheist world?

• Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior - Or Does It?

• Does Atheism (Determinism) Negatively Impact Morality?

• Atheism, Ethics, and Immorality

• Being Good “For Nothing” — Does That Make Atheist Ethics Better Than Christian?

• Questions on Atheism, Ethics, and Marital Conflict

• Atheism and ethics

Secular sources:

• Secular Morality

• The Moral Evaluation of Religion

Additional sources:

• God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality by Paul Copan
• Atheists and the Quest for Objective Morality by Chad Meister
• The amorality of atheim by Rob Smith
• Can we be good without God? by William Lane Craig]
• Atheism and ethics and morality by Ken Ammi
• Atheist explanations of morality and common sense
• Does being an atheist interfere with being moral? by Lydia McGrew
• Nietzsche slaps down Dawkins on the illusion of atheist morality by Dr. Joel McDurmon

Would you be interested in email communication with me? My email is userconservative135@gmail.com

Please let me know if you are interested. Conservative (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

Yes, that would be great! I've been thinking for some time of setting up a CP email address account, and I'll do that within the next couple of days. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

OK. That sounds good. Conservative (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2017 (EDT)

Here it is: 1990sguysdg@gmail.com --1990'sguy (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

I just sent you an email. Let me know if you got it. Conservative (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

I wrote another response to your email. Please check your email box. Conservative (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

I got your latest email and responded to it. Conservative (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

If you are interested, another article that needs to be created: Secular ethics

Sources about this topic:

• Secular ethics

• Secular Morality

• The Moral Evaluation of Religion

Thanks. Conservative (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

A couple more article suggestions related to atheism and morality

Also, here are a few more articles that need to be written about atheism and morality:

• Evolutionary ethics, Wikipedia has an article on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics

• Ethical naturalism, Wikipedia has an article on it at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism

• Ethical subjectivism, Wikipedia has an article on this subject at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivism

Thanks for your assistance on the Atheism and ethics article. It was much appreciated. Conservative (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

Here is the project I invited you to participate in:

• Conservapedia:Atheism Project

It should be easy to find relevant online material in order to create some of the articles. Conservative (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

Thank you, Conservative, for your suggestions. I will begin on some of these soon. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

I sent you an email. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

Well, I've got to say that vandalizing the user page of someone with block authority is really stupid.

But I take issue with your claim that he was an "obvious sock". As one who has been blocked a number of times on completely bogus socking charges, I take that stuff seriously. (The blocking was generally done by someone (now deceased) who had "checkuser" privileges and therefore had good tools for detecting socks, but did not understand how internet addresses work.)

It is not at all obvious to me, as one who has a lot of experience at CP, that he was a sock. He was a vandal, and you should block him for that.

Oh, dear. Now I see that there's a big storm of this stuff going on. And, yes, these guys, or at least some of them, are probably socks of each other. And at least one of them is using the name "obvioussock", just to taunt you. And one says he used to be a washing machine in his previous life.

My goodness! I think you are being trolled!  :-)  :-) And no, I had nothing to do with this. Just block them. It will blow over soon.

SamHB (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

Thank you for your message. :) Due to the fact that "reformed" was created right after I blocked two users and vandalized my user page, I assumed that it was a clear sock of one or both of them. However, as it was not clear to you and possibly others, I changed the block settings to just include vandalism. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

Sorry, I'm working with a tablet, and it's a piece of garbage. I didn't intentionally remove your comments. Sorry. RobS^{CIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2} 15:31, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

Assuming you're referring to those at Talk:Main Page, apology accepted. It can happen to the best of us. They were other user's edits, however. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

For your reverts yesterday on my userpage, saw the sock puppet master was not finished with his trolling. YortKeldher (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2017 (EDT)

You're welcome. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2017 (EDT)

Thank you for your improvements to Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination. Desmonduk (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

You're welcome. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

I sent you a message at the last place we communicated. Can you please read that message? Conservative (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

I sent you the information I promised. It is located at the place we last communicated. Conservative (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

Sent you message. Please check place we last communicated. Conservative (talk)

I sent you a quick note to the place we last communicated. Conservative (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2017 (EDT)

Could you please go to the place we last communicated? It is regarding another matter. Conservative (talk)

With a large photo, there is much more word wrap in the table of contents, which makes it even longer. We need a wide table of contents. Thanks, JDano (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

I've checked and double-checked, and I see no way how the larger-sized photo does anything to the table of contents. And I'm using a standard Google Chrome, 100% zoom screen. Could it be your search engine/zoom? I don't see any reason why the larger image is a problem in any way. I think it looks better, regardless. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

On Firefox the TOC is longer due to word wrap. You can get other pictures to help fill the space, but the space will be shorter if the TOC is wider. Thanks, JDano (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

I am getting a lot of 500 errors. I will wait for you to finish, and then I will go back and apply my changes. Thanks, JDano (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

I have done my changes. But please, when making those changes, please do not revert changes I have made, particularly changes that I have already reverted you multiple times. I'm tired of these disputes. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

Hello,
After some discussion (on my talk page and Andy's) it has been decided that I start an Internet Relay Chat channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know!
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --David B ^(TALK) 15:33, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

Thank you for your response. I have never used or really even heard of IRC prior before now (or, more accurately, before you and Andy started talking about it). What is the purpose of IRC? --1990'sguy (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

It is perhaps the oldest form of instant messaging. It is basically a chat room, where people can join and idle or actively chat. Visitors can ask members questions, and members can collaborate. There is even file sharing, if that would be useful. I'm going to be writing a how-to-use guide to explain the actual usage better.

Most people use software clients, which they install (or run portably, which a whole different story), but web clients are also available, such as this one. With the web client, you can just pick a name and connect, without installing anything. Also, since IRC has been around so long, software for it is compatible with almost anything. All desktop and most mobile operating systems support it. --David B ^(TALK) 15:55, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

Thanks for the info! --1990'sguy (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

Already took care of that and left a note for Teapublican on his talk page. Northwest (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2017 (EDT)

Thank you. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2017 (EDT)

Sorry, I just couldn't resist making fun of you there. I immediately recognized the Breitbart article, as one that I had seen shortly before. And then I saw that it was you. No hard feelings, I hope. SamHB (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

None at all. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

Congratulations! The March for Science article is a really good article. And you made it so. (Well, with a little prodding from me.) It sets out, straightforwardly, what was going on, and it doesn't descend into namecalling. I realize that you probably have very strong disagreements with what most of those people were doing, but you kept it professional.

Really good articles, especially on potential "hot button" issues of politics, aren't all that common. Now maybe I will make another attempt to return the Pussy Riot article to the good state it was in back when I expanded it in 2014, before it got messed up with the implication that anyone who opposes murderous thug tyrant Vladimir Putin must be a "leftist", "elitist", or "social justice warrior". For which I was blocked, in blatant violation of the rules of this site. SamHB (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

Thank you for the compliment! Unfortunately, the router I'm using blocked the "Pussy Riot" article because of the first word in the title, so I cannot comment on that at all. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

How sad. I have created the redirect Nadezhda Tolokonnikova in case that helps. But it probably won't. You had no trouble typing the "P" word above, so I guess it's a problem of your router not going to a page with that word in the title. Maybe I should have named the page with its Cyrillc letters: "Пусси Райот". Well, you're not missing anything of cosmic importance. SamHB (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

The redirect actually did work. Thanks! The article does not appear to have a high quality (at least in the aesthetic sense), so changes would probably be beneficial, but if you're going to make changes, I would like to remind you to be cautious and not to contradict CP's POV. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

In case you forgot, Sam (and how fast it appears that happens with you), it was you who violated the rules of this site by putting a liberal POV into that article (among others, per your history) in the first place, then insistently readding it after your edit was reverted and you were warned about violating CP policy and about starting fights with other editors. You really should take the advice you're being given here and not continue violating CP policy. Northwest (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

A few things:

• Today is my 9th anniversary at Conservapedia!
• I can assure everyone that I am very familiar with, and well versed in, the rules, commandments, guidelines, customs, and habits of CP. I am also familiar with the many, many, many discussions of these points that have taken place over the years.
• @Northwest: this is the expected response.
• @1990's guy: this is not the response I expected. I'm chagrined that you think the article is of low quality. Especially since you know how to write high quality articles.

I'm serious. I was proud of that article as originally written/expanded by me. I thought it laid out the facts accurately, and avoided name-calling and such. Exactly like the March for Science article. Please look at the article (preferably the [5] version, before name-calling got put in) and fix it up as you see fit. The name-calling consisted, among other things, of saying that those people around the world who took an interest in the case were "elitists" and "social justice warriors on the left". The latter term is straight out of Huffington Post and their ilk. It is a term of bleeding hearts in America, and not used widely elsewhere. In any case, one doesn't need to be an SJW to oppose murderous thug tyrant Vladimir Putin. In fact, given the recent falling out between President Trump and Putin, the accepted orthodoxy here at CP might be swinging away from support for the murderous thug. I hope so.

Please improve the article.

SamHB (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

My problem is not with content; it is with organization, layout, aesthetics, etc. There are no subsections, which at least show the reader how the article is organized; it is just many paragraphs. Such articles do not appeal to the reader. IMO, it feels like reading a textbook. If it is just a few paragraphs, it is fine, but thus article has ten paragraphs. Adding a few headers and possibly an image would be beneficial (and I realized just as I wrote this that the March for Science article is approaching that length as well, so I probably either should just keep my mouth shut or add headers there as well). I did not mean to insult or degrade your work, and I apologize for giving that impression. BTW, happy 9th anniversary! --1990'sguy (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

Sam - by your response, you're only proving what I said about your tactics and your history here right. You claim to be "very familiar with, and well versed in, the rules, commandments, guidelines, customs, and habits of CP", but you only pay lip service to them here while your actions on CP over the years (and even now) are showing that you simply choose to disregard them for the sake of pushing liberal POV on this site and to start fights with those who don't share your viewpoint. Northwest (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

Could you please contact me by email at sam4557@gmail.com? I think we can make a really good article out of this. I have a number of criticisms of his behavior--my opinion of him has gone down a whole lot over the last few weeks, and I think I have some insights about this that I'd like to bounce off of you. I know that you and I disagree totally about evolution and creationism, but we can put together a good article stating the facts. We can stay away from the name-calling that so many articles contain, and avoid things like "so-and-so falsely believes that ..."

This is not about Pussy Riot, not about Conservapedia politics, and not about you-know-who. I just want to bounce some ideas off of you about Bill Nye and see if we can put together a really nice article.

SamHB (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2017 (EDT)

I greatly expanded this article Abortion and eugenics. The footnote in the liberal article was not supporting or at the very least inadequately supporting racist/genocidal abortion policies of Margaret Sanger, etc.

Specifically, I skimmed the article as far as the footnoted article and it did not appear to strongly support such a big claim like abortion/genocide, etc. Conservative (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

... Ohhh I know what it is. Margaret Thatcher is on the list of liberals. Margaret. Thatcher. The bastion of conservatism. A favourite of Reagan. How in the world did she make the liberal list? Vive Liberté! 09:14, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

Wasn't me who added her. She was not as conservative as people think she is, as she did vote in favor of legalizing abortion and homosexuality. But, that said, it would probably be better without mentioning her, to avoid people focusing on her mention in the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

She might not have been a perfect conservative, but I still think she probably doesn't belong on that list. Of course, if you go back 80 years and read writings and speeches from liberals of the day, they sound downright conservative now. Still, she did defend liberty and much of conservatism. --David B ^(TALK) 13:18, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

Lady Thatcher's criticism of Simon Callow's performance in Amadeaus made her homophobic, I thought. Being homophobic wouldn't preclude one from being liberal however, Bill Moyers and Louis Black for example. RobS^{The coup plotters won, for now} 15:31, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

I assume that adding the liberalism template to the Episcopal Church article was improper? I would like to know what the proper usage of this template is for future reference. TEC is one of, if not the most liberal Christian denomination in the US these days, sadly. I do apologize for this improper usage, as I am a new editor. --Anglican (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

Hello Anglican! I removed the template because I thought the article was outside the scope of the "liberal" template. What I mean is that the template links to liberal traits, but not necessarily to liberal organizations. I think the category is good for the article, but not template. I hope this helps! --1990'sguy (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

That makes sense. Thank you for your patience. It's sad what has happened to the Episcopal Church in recent years. --Anglican (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

You're welcome, and I agree. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

User: Karajou sent me and others an email saying he didn't like CP's article on liberalism.

The article needs major improvements.

I am not going to work on it due to time restraints. I spent a lot of time improving the liberal article.

I would use the same approach used with the liberal article. Clearly delineate liberalism from socialism/fascism because they are very substantially different (for example, Sweden vs. Communist China vs. Nazi Germany). But mention how the gap between the ideologies has narrowed in the United States. I don't keep up with European politics to know the situation there as far as the gap other than knowing that China has become more capitalistic. European countries commonly have more major political parties in a country so the situation is more difficult to keep tabs on. Conservative (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

I posted the below information on RobS' talk page and thought I would share it with you also. You can go to RobS' talk page to see his response to me.

I would work on the liberalism article. But also create 2-3 sub-articles: American liberalism and Western liberalism and European liberalism. The American liberalism article is just a one sentence stub article.

I suggest a Western liberalism article due to the Canadians, Australia, NZ, and South Africa. Conservative (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

Since the Brits and Canadians have the most influence in the Anglosphere on the USA, you might want to create a British liberalism article and a Canadian liberalism article too.

Its too bad all this wasn't done before given that CP is a political website. I was largely focused on atheism which is a dying ideology. This had an indirect relation to liberalism given the prominence of the secular left on liberal/leftist politics. Conservative (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

I copied and pasted some of the liberal article into the American liberalism article.

Generally speaking, ideally you want the material in the section for main article linking to a sub-article to have substantially different content. In this case, you want the American liberalism article to have different content than the "American liberalism" section of the liberal article.

So if you want to reword and/or add material to the American liberalism article the would be excellent. Conservative (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

I wanted your opinion on an idea of mines to rename one of our articles on Conservapedia before taking it to an admin or someone with the ability to actually change the name of a page.

The current page Exodus of Israel, I think, should be renamed to The Exodus, where Exodus of Israel should simply be a redirect to that page. Not many users would think of typing 'Exodus of Israel' to get to a page on 'The Exodus', and 'The Exodus' is just much simpler. As it is, The Exodus is currently a redirect to Exodus of Israel. I think it should be the other way around. Your thoughts?Korvex (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2017 (EDT)

No, I think it is better the way it is. My main reason is that having titles along the lines of "The...." does not sound encyclopedic. The current name, I believe, is more high quality for that reason. Now, it is true that many users might not think of typing "Exodus of Israel," but if they type "Exodus," they'll run into the disambiguation page and find the actual article. Also, I'm not sure that many people would think of typing "The Exodus." To sum it up, I think the current title is better and give the article a more encyclopedic feel, but you're welcome to ask another editor what they think. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2017 (EDT)

Thanks for the thoughts. Wikipedia currently uses 'The Exodus', and I find that it simply looks better, as a title, then 'Exodus of Israel'. Secondly, I also consider it more likely for someone to type in 'The Exodus' then 'Exodus of Israel'.Korvex (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2017 (EDT)

Once again, if you want to ask another editor for their opinion, like DavidB4, feel free to do so. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2017 (EDT)

Thanks for your opinion. One thing though, do you know who can get this template locked?

At this point, all relevant pages have been created, and therefore this template no longer will ever need any more editing as it is complete. So the best thing to do is to get it locked to avoid any vandalism problems in the future. Just to note, before I came on, it was already locked, even though it still had many problems. Now that the template is fixed, the best thing to do is to get it locked. Korvex (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2017 (EDT)

I recommend asking User:Aschlafly or User:Karajou. They have protection powers. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2017 (EDT)

Thanks for your alert blocks. But one year is a long time for a block. IP addresses often change in a shorter period. You might consider 3 months as a better block duration in many cases.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2017 (EDT)

OK. I'll see to that. Should I change the blocks I just did? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2017 (EDT)

I just went ahead and changed them. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2017 (EDT)

Hey, I just checked Google. While that movie award comes up first when "Donald Trump achievements," is Googled, and you are the first result after, you get nice results with certain other phrases:

• Donald Trump accomplishments - third link, no box
• Trump achievements - first link, no box
• Trump accomplishments - fourth link, no box
• Donald Trump achievements and failures - fourth link, no box

While Conservative's essays come up first when their exact titles are Googled, bear in mind that these phrases are Googled more frequently. Congratulations on the publicity, 1990sguy!--Nathan (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2017 (EST)

Great job, it is well deserved! - -David B ^(TALK)

Thanks, Nathan and DavidB, I appreciate it! It seems I chose the right article to create, in terms of gaining page views. For a while, when one searched the exact title of my article, that silly award was not at the top of the article, and in its place was a box with a picture of Trump linking to my article. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2017 (EDT)

Can we chat briefly? Can you please go to place I sent you messages before? Conservative (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2017 (EDT)

• Liberal vs. libertarian

Thanks. Conservative (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2017 (EDT)

You've been helpful since I you first welcomed me here - me, someone who had never used wikitext or HTML in his life and never believed in a young Earth. You've really made me consider that viewpoint, and you've done it with a brilliant personal appeal, far better than User:Conservative ever has.--Nathan (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

Where do you think we can squeeze this in European migrant crisis? In the Intro or elsewhere? RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 02:13, 9 June 2017 (EDT)

I think that would be a good idea. We could also, possibly, add it to the European Union article, and maybe Globalism or Liberal, as these leaders advocate for left-wing globalist policies. Are you able to find other sources that note this fact? --1990'sguy (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2017 (EDT)

I think this also illustrates liberal European values. They support mass immigration of peoples who do not share their culture while they themselves have no children. They are committing national/cultural suicide. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2017 (EDT)

Because Ted Nugent is actually from Michigan. Sorry that I forgot to add an explanation. (King Conservative (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2017 (EDT)King Conservative)

I removed him from the list. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2017 (EDT)

Hi, guy! Thanks for the {{See also}} in Neil Gorsuch. That template works better. --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:53, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

You're welcome, always happy to help! --1990'sguy (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Dear 1990sguy: Please stop writing inflammatory edit summaries. There is no need to make false personal attacks on other editors. As for Breitbart, each reference is evaluated individually on its own merits. If it is news reporting, I welcome it. However, some references are clearly opinion-editorial pieces that criticize other news stories instead of offering any independent news gathering. Some authors there are editorial-opinion writers rather than news reporters. Also, when I check a source and see photos of immodestly dressed women with "wardrobe malfunction" captions or women wearing tight T-shirts imprinted with "no silicone", I am less inclined to use those sources, given our family-friendly approach. Thanks, JDano (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Conservapedia has no requirement that only news reporter sources can be used for mews sources. For example, many excellent conservative editorial pieces link to a news story or quote a news story while providing excellent commentary.

The mainstream press. which is very liberal, have a lot more reporters and they still have some foreign bureaus if I am not mistaken. Then you have Fox which only has a fraction of the combined viewership of ABC, CBS, and NBC.

To be overly reliant on news sources merely from websites who have reporters is not a good policy.

Yes, there are conservative news organizations such as CNS News. But I don't think we should limit ourselves to merely using conservative news organizations as far as news sources.Conservative (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

I agree with Conservative on this. We can use conservative news sources, even if the articles appear to be editorializing. This is a conservative encyclopedia, after all. Why should we adopt editing policies that give liberal MSM sources an unfair advantage? How then can we differentiate ourselves from Wikipedia? I am not opposed to citing MSM sources (I do it myself), but we should give precedence to conservative sources, which do not have leftist bias. Yes, Breitbart has silly ads, but I care more about the content of the article than the ads. There are many Breitbart writers who support conservative, Christian pro-family policies. Are there any at CNN or the NYT?

JDano, yes, my edit summaries were inflammatory. I probably should have acted cooler when dealing with you, and for that, I apologize. Your behavior, constantly reverting and adding changes that I genuinely believe to contain leftist bias without going to the talk page until you've been reverted several times, is not constructive. I do believe your changes are undermining our status as a conservative alternative to Wikipedia. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

In the recent edit changes, I saw you use all caps in your description of your edit. It was for the Travel ban article.

This tells me that you are starting to get "horse throwing" mad.

If it becomes necessary, you can impose a Conservapedia:Topic ban to JDano since you have blocking rights. You can make it applicable to certain articles or certain article categories. Probably a certain article would be best as a shot across his bow.

If JDano also has blocking rights, you can get Karajou/Aschlafly to impose such a ban. Conservative (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

P.S. I don't know if you are correct in this matter. And I don't have time to mediate. I am just offering you a suggestion since I have experienced JDano being unreasonable at times. Also, the majority of Conservapedians/Republicans/conservatives are more fans of Trump than Lindsey Graham. JDano appears to be in the Graham camp. Conservative (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Please see my comment in the section immediately above. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

I just posted this message to JDano's talk page:

"You are not allowed to edit the travel ban article anymore. I am imposing a Conservapedia:Topic ban on you for this article.

By the way, Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in terms of its Muslim population. The travel ban of the Trump administration does not include Indonesia."Conservative (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

I posted this on JDano's talk page:

"The fake news article was locked/protected. It seems as if the root cause of the page being locked was an edit war involving yourself.

You are no longer allowed to edit the fake news article. I am imposing a Conservapedia topic ban on you for this article. See: Conservapedia:Topic ban

I hope additional topic bans are not imposed on you by people with block rights." Conservative (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Socks of this clown should receive five year bans. He is a malicious provocateur, and he singlehandedly destroyed another website as well as leading dozens of people off this site. Show this schlemiel no mercy. --RonaldB (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2017 (EDT)

I don't see why we should be giving long blocks to this guy. He's clearly using multiple ip addresses. These addresses will probably get passed to one or more people who have no intention of vandalizing CP. DavidB4 explained by long blocks are not a good idea on my talk page: [6] However, I will not challenge your lengthening of that block or any other. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2017 (EDT)

Maybe you do have a point because he has created a few different accounts in the past day or so. All I'm saying is that lightening up on him isn't going to work. My late friend George let this guy off easy, and he destroyed an entire community. I've had plenty of experience with this guy in the past to know his MO, and he's fanatically obsessed with Taylor Swift and "avenging" others because they "ruined" his articles. --RonaldB (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2017 (EDT)

That's fair. This guy is clearly bad news. Regardless of what block lengths we give him (and I can see some sense in making them longer), we should try not to accidently prevent innocent people from viewing CP. Thanks for your help! --1990'sguy (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2017 (EDT)

How do we know that this editor is a "sock" of JamesWilson? Has anyone checked the IP user logs? The Taylor Swift connection could be a false-flag operation. If George and James got into an edit-war on a different website, that would not be relevant here. Let's judge each editor separately until they can be linked by evidence. Are all of the problem users created in the past few days created from the same or very similar IP addresses? Thanks, JDano (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2017 (EDT)

He put "Sad case!- James Wilson" in the edit summary of all of his vandalism, and it was the same stuff he's always done. If he says it's him, I'm just gonna assume it's him. Dont give this guy the benefit of the doubt. He's had plenty enough breaks here and elsewhere. --RonaldB (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2017 (EDT)

@JDano: Yes, I think it clearly is JamesWilson. His vandalism is very repetitive -- he even vandalizes the user pages of the same users. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2017 (EDT)

• FYI, even if an account is blocked indefinitely, the autoblock on the IPs is only for twenty-four hours. If the IP block was for as long as the account's block, checkusers wouldn't have to put separate blocks on persistent vandals' IP addresses. DMorris (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2017 (EDT)

Since I've written a few articles on Christianity, please feel free to edit them to conform to the views of Conservapedia if necessary. Admittedly, writing about Christianity as a Jew can be a bit difficult at times. --Ronald (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2017 (EDT)

I have not seen any factual problems with the articles you created. However, I do recommend that you add categories of the religion you are writing about to those articles. For example, that you add "Category:Christianity" to Secular Christianity and "Category:Judaism" to Secular Judaism. The people who practice these are not Jews (religiously speaking) or Christians, but the articles are relevant to those religions.

Also, I recommend that you add at least one source to the articles you create. Adding sources to articles is Commandment #2 in Conservapedia:Commandments, and it makes the articles better for readers. They know where you are getting your information from, and they can read further if they are interested. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2017 (EDT)

I don't know if Andy saw my request on his talk page. Did he skip it or didn't see it? --KommissarReb (talk) 9:18, 10 July 2017 (EDT)

I don't know. Sometimes he does that, but when I message him again he usually replies. I recommend commenting again, letting him know how much you want your username changed, and asking him to respond. I think we will do it, but only if you absolutely want it. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2017 (EDT)

I read the back and forth with the guy you probably were referring to on Andy's page. Andy seemed pretty reluctant to change the RonaldB's name for most of the discussion.. Is the process of changing someone's username complex or difficult to do, or did he just want to make sure that the guy wasn't being wishy-washy about the change? I was a little sheepish about asking him again because I don't want to seem annoying. --KommissarReb (talk) 5:07, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

I think CP admins generally prefer simply creating a new account. The user who made the other request was not the original person using the account. The original person let him take over the account. I can see why Andy wanted him to create a new account. I recommend you politely letting him know how much you want your username changed, and why, and asking him to respond, regardless of his answer. I think that would be a good move on your part. It would show how serious you are with this request. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

I think Donald Trump is going to get stuck with the blame for the economic bubble created by the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve.[7]

In addition, TrumpCare probably will not work because it is keeping the "precondition clause" of ObamaCare due to its popularity. People will often not buy health insurance until they are sick. So the health care system will not be viable. Car insurance companies could not be profitable if people could buy their car insurance after their car accident in order to replace their car. Conservative (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

You are probably right on both of those things. The first point would be the fault of the Obama Administration, and the second by the establishment GOP Congress. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

Got it, thanks for letting me know. --OneTrueConservative (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

You're welcome. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

• The recent explosion of right-wing news sites

• Why the Right Is Dominating YouTube - Vice News

• Why the Right is Dominating YouTube (A Response to Vice)

• Psychological effects of right-wing and Islamic extremist videos - Netherlands and German report

I know Twitter bans and shadow bans right-wingers.

I haven't looked at the latter two items, but right-wingers gaining momentum on the internet is an interesting development. With nationalism gaining ground in Europe and 21st century desecularization occurring, the trend is bound to continue. Conservative (talk)

Scriptural Geology

Scriptural Geologists published in the USA as well. CRSQ published my review of David Lord "Geognosy" (that has other citations as well). [my magazines are in storage but the year was 2000-2004.] Another recent CRSQ review was Gordon's 1878 book that mentioned USA Scriptural Geologist Martyn Payne.

Thanks, Snoopy2, for your addition! I noted this fact, briefly in the article, in "The scriptural geologists" section. I knew that most of the Scriptural Geologists were British, and I did not have the time or knowledge of them to go into much more detail. Thanks for your help! Please remember to sign your posts in the future. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2017 (EDT)

I sent you an important message to the last place we communicated.

I also have some good news for you. Conservative (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2017 (EDT)

BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!!

Thanks for your great blocks but they should generally not exceed 6 months in duration. By then the IP address is typically being used by someone else.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2017 (EDT)

OK. I will keep that in mind. I will change this vandal's block. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2017 (EDT)

Björn Höcke nannte das Holocaust-Mahnmal ein "Denkmal der Schande". Zudem sprach er von einer "dämlichen Bewältigungspolitik" und forderte eine "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad". Hinterher behauptete Höcke, er hätte den Holocaust als Schande bezeichnet. Wenn man sich nun seine Rede genau anschaut, kann er nur das Denkmal als Schande bezeichnet haben. Höcke hat offen NS-Gedankengut offenbart und dies auch gewollt. Er ist ein Agent des BRD-Systems, die zum Ziel haben, die AfD unwählbar zu machen. Dasselbe haben sie schon mit der NPD gemacht (in den 90er Jahren). Ich find's ja auch schade, dass die AfD unterwandert wurde und nicht mehr wählbar ist. Auch ich habe große Hoffnungen in sie gesetzt. Aber spätestens seit dem letzten Parteitag ist sie unwählbar, die Neo-Nazis gewannen die Oberhand, Gauland wurde Spitzenkandidat. Solange Petry keine neue Partei gründet, müssen Rechtschaffene bei der Bundestagswahl das geringste Übel wählen (z.B. die Freien Wähler oder die BüSo). Aber die AfD ist klar von NS-Agenten unterwandert und ich schrieb noch mehr in den Artikel, also lassen Sie mich zumindest Höckes Rede einfügen, dann kann sich jeder selber ein Bild machen. MfG --Elessar (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2017 (EDT)