Changes

::::JDano, are you saying that we should never revert your edits? The reason why I revert many of your edits is that I think they insert liberal bias into CP. You are correct: we should put any politician's agenda. However, we should push the policies advocated by a politician. If you read the [[Conservative]] article, I think it is clear that the Trump Administration is adhering more closely to it than a Romney, Graham, McCain, or any Bush Administration ever even could. Thus, attacking Trump for petty things like a "Comey tapes" (he did not even definitively say that tapes existed) does not advance conservative views (we can note this on appropriate articles, like [[White Hous tapes]], but not in the fake news article where it simply does not belong). Have you ever added information that portrayed Trump in a positive, rather than negative light? my problem with your edits is much more than just Trump. It is with citing Breitbart articles, the definition of fake news, and your editing behaviors in general. You need to go to the talk page, or at least explain your edit summaries every change you are making, rather than (over and over again) make deceptive edit summaries along the lines of "trimming" or "improving" or "add ref" when you are really just reverting the same changes that I reverted due to liberal bias. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 03:03, 29 June 2017 (EDT)  

::::JDano, are you saying that we should never revert your edits? The reason why I revert many of your edits is that I think they insert liberal bias into CP. You are correct: we should put any politician's agenda. However, we should push the policies advocated by a politician. If you read the [[Conservative]] article, I think it is clear that the Trump Administration is adhering more closely to it than a Romney, Graham, McCain, or any Bush Administration ever even could. Thus, attacking Trump for petty things like a "Comey tapes" (he did not even definitively say that tapes existed) does not advance conservative views (we can note this on appropriate articles, like [[White Hous tapes]], but not in the fake news article where it simply does not belong). Have you ever added information that portrayed Trump in a positive, rather than negative light? my problem with your edits is much more than just Trump. It is with citing Breitbart articles, the definition of fake news, and your editing behaviors in general. You need to go to the talk page, or at least explain your edit summaries every change you are making, rather than (over and over again) make deceptive edit summaries along the lines of "trimming" or "improving" or "add ref" when you are really just reverting the same changes that I reverted due to liberal bias. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 03:03, 29 June 2017 (EDT)  

:::1990sguy does not understand the typical edit summary explanations.  He has too much ego invested in his edits and tries to exert "ownership" over pages, including pages where he has not even generated most of the content, or comes in very late in the page's development.  This makes collaboration with him very difficult, and it has to change. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 07:06, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

:::1990sguy does not understand the typical edit summary explanations.  He has too much ego invested in his edits and tries to exert "ownership" over pages, including pages where he has not even generated most of the content, or comes in very late in the page's development.  This makes collaboration with him very difficult, and it has to change. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 07:06, 29 June 2017 (EDT)