User talk:1990'sguy

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links


Hello, 1990'sguy, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, 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)


References from Wikipedia

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)

Account promoted

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)

Reading the WSJ

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)

Account promoted

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)

Move and unlock requests

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)

Karajou blocked a user who expressed views supporting the Presidential candidate who is not a sexual preditor.

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 (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)

Account promoted again

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)

Can't edit article

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)

Thank you!

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)

Geocentric page

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 a simple misunderstanding. Please be reasonable.

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)

Hello um 1990sguy Im not a spammer or troll I just want to edit this page so I can mod the Alexa device to read out conservapedia instead of wickedpedia.

First off, you need talk page permission if you're going to make massive changes on one of CP's most important articles. I re-inserted some of your edits, but you need talk page permission to go further and change the article's very tone and point of view. Second, are you a sock of Amorrow? --1990'sguy (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2018 (EST)
I am almost certainly not apart of this sock of amorrow, what is an Amorrow anyway 1990s?--Reevestehsnek (talk 14:58, 8 November 2018 (EST)
Amorrow is the user who started the discussion you're commenting in. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2018 (EST)
Reeves, if your going to troll, you need an upgrade. Don't be so amatuerish about it. Show us something new and witty so we can develop appropriate countermeasures. You're obviously not stupid. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:31, 8 November 2018 (EST)
Not a Troll, just following guidelines to not start a new section unless it hasn't been posted--Reevestehsnek (talk 16:09, 8 November 2018 (EST)
Like I am legit confused, During these last few Hours I get the feeling that you 1990s guy either think Im trying to wreck youre words or that I'm a troll. I also get the feeling that I am extremely unwelcome. Like is all this because I'm black. Because if that's the case Ill leave this site like real pronto.--Reevestehsnek (talk 16:26, 8 November 2018 (EST)
You're confusing me with RobS, who also commented right above. I did not accuse you of trolling. If you feel unwelcome, it's probably because you're new, and you are not familiar with CP's rules. Also, CP is an extremely high target of vandalism, so we act the same way for every new user to vet them. Your skin color (which nobody knows) has nothing to do with it. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2018 (EST)
Also, we recommend that you make a new section on a talk page. We discourage commenting on a two-year-old section about a completely different topic. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2018 (EST)

Pitch hitting

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)

Merry Christmas


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)

St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre

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)

European immigration

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)

Father's SSN

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 . 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 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 . He also has pages like . 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)

Hate crime

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. RobSMake 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. RobSMake 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. RobSMake 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)

Ban editing

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)
I apologize for adding to a discussion which is over a year old. However, DMorris straightened me out about this, and I wanted to belatedly set the record straight. When a user is blocked, the username/account is blocked for a specified amount of time, but the IP address is only blocked for 24 hours, unless it is banned separately. Autoblock will put a 24-hour ban on all IPs used by the banned account, though I'm not sure if it also blocks IPs which log into the banned account at a later time...I believe it does. Therefore, it seems we do not need to worry about the last point I made, as I was mistaken. Once DMorris corrected me, I did some research and testing, which confirmed what he told me. --DavidB4 (TALK) 00:03, 28 March 2019 (EDT)
Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2019 (EDT)


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)

Abortion article

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)

Addiction article and TAR

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)

Quick project

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: EU member states.png. 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 article?

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

Secular sources:

Additional sources:

quick note

Would you be interested in email communication with me? My email is

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: --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

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

Sources about this topic:

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:

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

The Project I invited you to participate in plus

Here is the project I invited you to participate in:

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)

Blocking user "reformed"

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)

Screw up

Sorry, I'm working with a tablet, and it's a piece of garbage. I didn't intentionally remove your comments. Sorry. RobSCIA 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)

Thank you

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)

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination

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)

small request

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)

Photo size

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)


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
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)

Re: Vandal

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)

Recent item on maintalk -- congratulations!

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)

Bill Nye

Could you please contact me by email at 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)

Expanded article, footnote did not support genocide/racist abortions adequately

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)

Something isn't right here

... 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. RobSThe 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. So...

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)

Re: American liberalism

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)

Opinion on renaming an article

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)

Block length

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)

Congratulations on Donald Trump accomplishments

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 you chat briefly?

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

Here is the the article

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

It's been great

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)

Europe's childless leaders

Where do you think we can squeeze this in European migrant crisis? In the Intro or elsewhere? RobSDeep 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)

The reason I removed Ted Nugent from Notable Texans

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)

Template tweak

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)

Nasty edit summaries

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)

re: JDano and you getting "horse throwing" mad

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)

JDano has a topical ban imposed on him for the "travel ban" article.

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)

JDano has a topical ban imposed on him for the fake news article

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 JamesWilson

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)

Changing my username

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)

Re: Trump

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)

Expansion of right-wing material on the internet

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)

important message for you

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 duration

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)

"Denkmal der Schande"

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)

Grüetzi Elessar, CP ist ein Englisher website, so es ist besser wann wir in English schreiben. Ich denke dass die meisten leute heir sprechen kein Deutsch. Danke. Wass ich sage ist sehr kontrovers in Deutschland, aber, Ich probiere ein klares und gutes antwort zum geben:
First off, many political parties have their crazy members. I know that UKIP explicitly disavows racism, but it has had some members who have said some silly things. I definitely do not believe the GOP in the U.S. is racist, but David Duke considers himself a Republican (and every other Republican disavows him). Even the Swiss People's Party in my country (I am also a U.S. citizen) has some members who have said racist things. Just because parties have members like this does not necessarily mean that the entire party is racist or whatever. In the case of Höcke's speech, Petry (the party leader, as you know) condemned what he said, or at least criticized him.
Second, I know the mindset that the German have today. They are still ashamed for what they did during World War II, and they are still focused on trying to make restitution. Personally, I think it is good that they have repented, but they miss the fact that there are two extremes: one extreme is what the Nazis did, the other is being so ashamed bad things one did that they essentially hate their country. We see this with liberals in the United States. I think the German mindset is too far in the second extreme -- and no, I am anywhere close to being a racist or Nazi. Patriotism and nationalism can be very good things, as long as they are handled correctly and are not an excuse to persecute others. The German people, I think, are trying to extinguish them, and they have accused people, even those in the middle of those two extremes, as being Nazis.
Let me also make clear that I have not read much about Björn Höcke's speech, other than what you provided and what his English Wikipedia article states, so I cannot comment on his entire speech and his entire character. He may very well be what you say he is. However, what I read about his speech and about him actually seems reasonable. Many peoples all over the world have done many evil things -- slavery in the U.S. and the other European colonies, the Islamic slave trade, religious persecution in Rome and the communist nations, the several genocides in history, etc. However, it is not constructive for cultures to focus on these events. It is good to remember them and repent of them, but not to obsess about them. There is much more to German history than World War II, just as there is more to U.S. history than slavery. Why can't we build monuments celebrating the positive things about our cultures and our people? It is cultural suicide not to do so. While we should not forget the bad events, we should focus on the good events and remain proud as a people in order to remain strong. This seems to me what Höcke is getting at. Am I wrong?
Reading his Wikipedia article, I came accross this quote: "Die Syrer, die zu uns kommen, haben immer noch Syrien. Wenn wir – durch die Syrer – unser Deutschland verloren haben, dann haben wir keine Heimat mehr." I can see how in Germany this is very controversial, but I think in most other countries, this is quite reasonable. It may not be a bad thing if Syrians come, but it would mean that the German people would be in danger of disappearing, at least in a cultural sense. If someone values this (as most people of all ethnicies and nationalities do -- just ask the Poles or Hungarians), they will strongly oppose immigration.
Am I wrong in what I am saying? Am I misrepresenting Höcke? I would appreciate some dialogue. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
No, you aren't wrong and I too was never questioning that the "eternal fault" (electing Hitler/WW2) which is propagated by German liberals is bullshit. I only mean that Höcke was not only saying that, but he also clearly favorized the Holocaust by calling for an "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad" and calling the Holocaust monument a "Denkmal der Schande". This speech was much criticized by Jewish organizations in Germany and Höcke was forbidden to visit Concentration Camp Memorials. He's not a single exemption, but there are unfortunately already lots of neo-Nazis or neo-Nazi sympathizers in the AfD who are all defending Höcke's speech, including Spitzenkandidat Alexander Gauland. Party leader Petry was forced by them not to participate. These (real) neo-Nazis are system agents who are overrunning the AfD like they did decades ago with the NPD in order to make these parties uneligible by conservative voters. But of course many liberals call all real conservatives "neo-Nazis" which there is nonsense. But Höcke is really a neo-Nazi and anti-semite and should be excluded together with his inner-party defenders. --Elessar (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
I don't understand how the "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad" shows that Höcke is a neo-Nazi. It seems to be saying that German policy on these matters needs to change, which I also think is reasonable. The culture of shame in Germany must end -- when will Egypt build a monument mourning the Islamic slave trade, and when will Turkey build a monument mourning the Armenian Genocide? That's what I think he is saying. Am I wrong? Please explain.
While I am a strong supporter of Israel, I do think that many Jewish organizations in Europe and the United States are politically left-wing -- unlike the current Israeli government. The fact that they opposed Höcke's speech is unsurprising, even if he is not a neo-Nazi. Most European/American Jews support the ruling establishment's views on who is extreme and who is "moderate." And besides, Jewish organizations have their own interests. It's reasonable for them to defend monuments mourning a genocide of their own people, regardless of whether having such a monument, or at least the mindset behind it, is a good thing or not.
It seems to me that you are making a jump from noting what Höcke is saying to calling him a neo-Nazi. A lot of what he is saying seems reasonable, even if it is better that he watches what he says more closely, and I don't see how these comments make them neo-Nazis (I do see, however, how such comments are far outside the current German mainstream, and that they make such parties less attractive to moderate Germans). It seems to me that Höcke is a nationalist who is angry at the culture of shame in his country, which is probably the reason why it is being flooded with immigrants and weakened by the EU. Many conservatives said silly things (that sounded extremely racist) about Obama when he was U.S. President, even though those people would have voted for conservative blacks (Ben Carson, Allen West, Herman Cain) or Hispanics (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz) in a heartbeat. Could it be that this is what Höcke is doing?
My last thing I want to say in this comment is not related to the above. I would like to remind you that CP is a family-friendly encyclopedia, and I think this policy also applies to talk pages. I request that you thus refrain from spelling out cuss words when making comments. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
Sorry about the term "b***" but I'm as angry as you about the "eternal fault" dogma. And you are completely right with most (including the Jews being too liberal in Europe), but in my opinion the quote "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad" is like he wanted to say "The Holocaust was nothing bad" or "not so bad" or so. Like it would be Holocaust relativation. Maybe Höcke really didn't mean anything bad in his speech but then he's simply uncaring of what he says because he damages his party with such unclear statements. --Elessar (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
As we disagree on his speech (even though I do think your last comment was very reasonable), I chose to move the info to another place in the article and re-word it. If you have any problems with how I re-worded it, we can discuss that as well. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
Björn Höcke said in whole this: "Wir Deutschen – und ich rede jetzt nicht von euch Patrioten, die sich hier heute versammelt haben – wir Deutschen, also unser Volk, sind das einzige Volk der Welt, das sich ein Denkmal der Schande in das Herz seiner Hauptstadt gepflanzt hat." This means, not German patriots but the other Germans (liberals e.g.) have founded the Holocaust monument which he calls a Denkmal der Schande. Which means, according to him true German patriots wouldn't have built the Holocaust monument, which can be interpreted as he's pro-Holocaust. The same interpretation is open in his other quote "Wir brauchen eine erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad". Maybe he didn't want to relativate the Holocaust but he should watch out what he says, especially if his party wants to enter a coalition. A coalition with establishment parties wouldn't be bad as long as the AfD maintains its goals and gets many of them into a government program. --Elessar (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2017 (EDT)
I can see now how people think the speech was sympathizing with Nazis -- the Holocaust and WWII is a touchy topic, especially for Germans. However, I still see how what he is saying is reasonable. Turkey, for example, is not going to build a monument for the Armenian Genocide anytime soon, Russia is not going to build a monument for the many Baltic peoples they killed during WWII, and Japan is not going to build any monument for the millions of people they killed, including concentration camp prisoners.
I do know that there are two AfD factions: one that has a goal of becoming a coalition party, and the other that wants to remain an anti-establishment party. Höcke is clearly part of the latter, while Petry is in the former. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2017 (EDT)
The AfD can remain an anti-establishment party and anyway be part of a government coalition, like the Austrian FPÖ which also seeks being part in coalitions (and already is in two states) and remains loyal to all of its positions. --Elessar (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2017 (EDT)
Fair enough, but you get the point: there are two factions in the party on the best way foreward for the party. One of them support coalition agreements and the other side is less pragmatic in this regard. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2017 (EDT)


Hi - not sure why you changed my edits on the BREXIT page - I tried to provide an accurate account of what is happening and what is being reported by many news outlets --unsigned comment by HORSEMAN

Hello "HORSEMAN", I removed the info about the potential referendums because this was just speculation that died down. I also thought that some of your wording (such as the "full complexity and impacts of BREXIT become apparent" and by removing the mention of the EU being obstructionist) seemed to insert a left-of-center bias into the article. CP is a conservative encyclopedia, and we align firmly with Brexit and Euroskepticism. However, I will see if I can re-add some of your wording. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
Another problem is that for the part about the proposed payments and EU citizen rights, you did not provide sources. The existing info already had a source, and you changed the info while keeping the source. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
Hi Again, would this link suffice It is the definitive statement from the EU negotiating team and sets out the negotiating agenda. Thanks Horseman
You can definitely cite the source, but do you also have third party sources as well? I see nothing in the EU source about the monetary amount of the settlement. We prefer sources with conservative editorial stances. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
Is this syitable, I don't pay for Telegraph articles so only have this link. Thanks Horseman
The Telegraph is one of numerous conservative news organizations. Besides, their non-commentary articles are free for viewing. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2017 (EDT)

Margaret Sanger revision that you undid

Hi 1990'sguy,

Is there a way to reword what I wrote in such a way that it could be considered "encyclopedic"?

Thanks, Bluedogdemocrat (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

You could write "Planned Parenthood eventually expanded to support the form of murder known as abortion." Something like that. We should keep the wording encyclopedic, as this is not a blog or anything like that. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

Re: Block of TimJim

Sorry about that, I wasn't aware you had already blocked TimJim when I blocked him, so I reset the block length back to that of your original block. Northwest (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2017 (EDT)

Article move request

Hi I'd be happy to move those articles you are requesting, but as you know, I cannot avoid the creation of redirects. Let me know if you want this, but hopefully you can get it done the right way. It's also probably easier to ask for a move than a delete. --David B (TALK) 17:43, 21 August 2017 (EDT)

I appreciate your offer, David, but I think it would be better if I keep it simple for Andy, rather than explain that the articles were moved and that he only has to delete the redirect -- having one person do it is more simple. Thanks anyway! :) --1990'sguy (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
Agreed...okay. I didn't want to cut in and disrupt things, but just thought I'd offer. Cheers! --David B (TALK) 17:49, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
I do appreciate your offer, David. Thanks! It looks like Andy just moved the articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2017 (EDT)


You can email me at RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:22, 26 August 2017 (EDT)


1990s guy, I just want to verify u could read the Theistic ev. entry and 1994 film clip on my user talk. any comments?

I could watch it, but would you please explain what it's about in a little more detail? --1990'sguy (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2017 (EST)

Maybe I was too pessimistic. Good news

Why Democrats Should Be Losing Sleep Over Generation Z.[8]

Bye for now. Conservative (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

Thanks for the article. Bye for now. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

File comparison tool

Did Cons ever get back to you with the comparison tool? I'm curious about it, and whether it does a good job of checking for copied content. The problems that it appears to solve are different from the problems of comparison tools used in software development. I'm curious about whether it uses line hashing, sentence hashing, word group hashing, and things like that. I'd like to try it out, and not just at CP. In fact, probably not at all for CP; I'm not interested in who plagiarizes what at CP, though, when I am, I use other techniques to catch people. I'm just curious as to whether those other techniques have been automated.

It's puzzling that Cons deleted the screenshot, as though he wants people to believe he's a liar, though I don't think he is.

SamHB (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2017 (EDT)

I can assure you that the tool exists. I have not tried it yet and thus cannot answer your question. I have no reason to try it as JDano's essays were deleted, so I recommend that you ask Conservative directly these things. Maybe he will share it with you. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
Great!! I'm still very much interested in it. Is it a "cloud app"? Is it a downloadable app that I can run locally on my own computer? Can you send me a URL?
By the way, the standard wiki comparison of your last edit to the Guy Verhofstadt article, just as a random example, shows how bad text comparers can be. SamHB (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
You are going to have to ask Conservative for the details of the tool -- he told me not to give it away to anyone, and while I personally have no problem with sharing it with you, I shouldn't go against what he said. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
Well, this is really weird. Cons seems to be trying to censor the internet itself, hiding the location of this tool. And he seems to think that only you can be trusted with it. He said "I will share this tool with 1990sguy [...] so he can evaluate your [JDano's] efforts in an objective way." I of course took this as a challenge. A Google search for "similar page checker tool" gets a number of hits. Ignoring the ones that cost a lot of money, and those that attempt to check a given page against the entire internet, narrowed it down to a few. This one: [9] seems to be the right thing. It's a "cloud app" rather than an installable program, but I can put up with that. It has the same appearance—color and layout—as the screenshot that Cons posted and removed. I ran it on the versions of this page before and after your recent reply to me, and it said they were 100% the same. I'm not particularly happy about that, but the additional text was only about 0.3 percent of the total, so I suppose I can accept that. Then I ran it on versions that differ in length by 10% (the 100K version and the 110K version.) It said they were 98% similar. Not good. But I still might find it to be a useful tool. There are pages not relating to JDano that could benefit from such an analysis.
I will probably check in with Cons on this, once he stays away from CP for 10 days.
SamHB (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2017 (EDT)

Getting help

I am trying to fix the stuff on the Corporate bullies page. Am still learning my way around on how to use things. Think I am starting to get it though. The Georgia 2016 stuff has a lot of info and I am in the process of editing it, though it's going to take a while (at least 20 or more minutes. I'm trying though. (BTW, if I wasn't supposed to edit here, sorry. I don't know how to reply to your remark otherwise.) PatriotMongoose (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

It's OK to edit here. I recommend that you read CP's guidelines, and probably more importantly, that you read Help:How to edit a website like Conservapedia. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

Fabulous block and reverts

Fabulous block and reverts this afternoon!!!! Well done!!!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2017 (EDT)

Thanks, Andy! :) --1990'sguy (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2017 (EDT)

re: JohnZ

User: JohnZ fails to recognize that my interest to be a referee to protect a marginal online sparring partner (whose greatest achievement was his dogged stubbornness to ignore facts/evidence) was largely protected by his edits to main space articles and my desire for an online sparring partner.

His rudeness to other editors and his desire to barely skate by with his main space edits certainly did not help matters. In addition, given the decline of the atheist movement and it now being a hopeless cause destined to ever increasing irrelevance, my desire for an atheist online sparring partner is non-existent at this point given my current/future priorities.

If he wants to create two quality, well-sourced original articles of at least 2,00 words on these topics Anti-religious Soviet Union propaganda and Christian persecution in communist China to restore his other editing privileges, that is what is required.

He would also have to pledge to refrain from hurling insults to other editors (idiot, etc.). Conservative (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

Hopefully he'll do it. We've given him these opportunities before and he rejected them. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2017 (EDT)
I made a minor adjustment to his requirements for fully restoring his editing privileges in case someone creates articles on those subjects.
Secondly, ardent secular leftists generally always double down regardless of any contrary facts/evidence presented to them. Of course, you never know what is going to happen. The Apostle Paul went from being one of Christianity's chief opponents to being its greatest champion. He will just need to be open minded.
It is very widely recognized that there is and has been religious persecution in communist China and that there was anti-religious propaganda in the former Soviet Union. So I am giving him ample opportunity to show that he is not a close-minded individual given to hurling insults. Conservative (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

I would say no to this for a couple reasons. The first is his blatant disrespect of everyone here, and he has shown that multiple times. The gist of it is a pretense of superiority over us, as if it is mandatory that we listen to him; he stated a short time ago that some of us are idiots for not engaging him in conversation. Which I might add is his kind of conversation.

The second reason is that he's a leftist brand of liberal from Great Britain, which means we cannot change his way of thinking whatsoever. Unfortunately for someone who is that close-minded he is going to go into lock-step with every other like-minded individual in his country, which would mean the loss of the United Kingdom as a political entity within a few years time. In his case, he is more concerned with picking a fight with the users of a small American conservative website then he is with what he and his kind are allowing to happen in Britain, namely the Islamic takeover. As a leftist, he probably feels he can get along with them in the name of diversity and multiculturalism, but when all is said and done he will either be forced on his hands and knees with his butt high in the air, or he'll have his head chopped off.

Unfortunately, some people think they're so better than others that they've blinded themselves to what they're actually doing. Karajou (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2017 (EDT)

Karajou, if you look at my comment to his talk page, you will see that I am giving him an opportunity to show that he can be open-minded and reasonable by writing on two topics related to atheistic communism persecution of Christians/religious (namely Christian persecution in communist China and Anti-religious propaganda in the Soviet Union) via two quality articles of at least 2,000 words.Conservative (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2017 (EDT)

Anti-Christian bias in Wikipedia

Hello 1990'sguy. Am I being hypersensitive or is Wikipedia's anti-Christian bias increasing? For example, the recent dispute about content at Answers in Genesis.[10] I see also that User:Synthetic Woolly Mammoth[11] has just been blocked, allegedly for being a sockpuppet of Biscuittin, but more likely because he has been speaking up in support of some Christian editors. Desmonduk (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2017 (EST)

I know another editor who has extensively edited topics related to Christianity and atheism on WP, and he told me that the ati-Christian bias on the site was much worse back around 2012. The militant atheists don't have as much power as they did back then. However, the anti-Christian bias obviously is still very bad, especially on YEC topics, which I have been dealing with for years already. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2017 (EST)

Block length

Thanks for your alert block of new user "CPishilarious", but I'm going to change the block duration from 2 years to 1 month. Long blocks are disfavored on wikis because they block the IP address as well as the user. The IP address could be a library or other general access IP address, or the user could move or be a college student, or the user could have a change of heart. But thanks again for your quick action.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2017 (EST)

OK, and you're welcome. I have seen blocked vandals come back with their same accounts after their blocks expire, so I wanted to protect against that. But I will shorten blocks like these in the future. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2017 (EST)
Thanks so much for your alert block this morning, but again the block duration is too long. Another user could be trying to use that same IP address within a few months, or the user himself could have a change of heart. I'll shorten it to 4 months. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2017 (EST)
Andy, it feels like I'm the only editor you're messaging about block length, even though my blocks are much shorter than most other editors. For example, just yesterday, I blocked two accounts for six months for having a silly username and for (relatively) non-serious vandalism, but shortly later, DMorris reset the blocks for 5 years. See here: [12][13] If you're going (for good reason) to message me for my blocks, please do the same for the other editors who prefer even longer blocks. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2017 (EST)
But yes, I will still shorten my blocks. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2017 (EST)

Suggested article

Here is an article suggestion:

I think there would be public interest in such an article. Conservative (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2017 (EST)

Thanks. If I get time, I will start this article. I will add it to my list of articles to create. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2017 (EST)

Two things

For one, why do you not have email enabled? Secondly, consider longer blocks for these obviously malicious accounts. You can block an account for infinity and the autoblock on the IP still only lasts 24 hours. There is no reason for these sleeper accounts to come back to life three months later. DMorris (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2017 (EST)

In his defense, he was doing longer blocks until Andy started asking him not too, then reminded him again. --David B (TALK) 16:25, 13 December 2017 (EST)
Yes, for crying out loud, why am I the only one being criticized for my block lengths? If I make my block lengths long, Andy posts on my talk page, and if I make my block lengths shorter, DMorris posts on my talk page.
DMorris, please talk to Andy about this. I will continue making my blocks on the shorter side until your differing opinions are sorted out.
About my email, I have my email address posted on my user page. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2017 (EST)

Articles of the year: 2017 - your article is being featured on the main page (left side)

Keep up the good work.Conservative (talk)

Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2017 (EST)

Nationalism v Globalism

I went ahead and added a link to the Gardner article on the Nationalism v Globalism article for you. I figured since we were referencing it, it would be good to see the original article too.--Whizkid (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2018 (EST)

Thanks! I already saw and added it to other articles where I mentioned Gardner. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2018 (EST)


I deleted the paragraph on Texas requirements (which I originally added) since it was duplicative of the information I added from HSLDA (which covers all 50 states) regarding state requirements. I left the New Hampshire one since it involved a court imposing its will on a family in violation of state law.

I'm glad you liked my original work, but after finding something better and covering more than just one state, I amended my original work. Though after your comments, I revised it to explain that another state court (Texas) made homeschooling far easier than before. Quidam65 (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2018 (EST)

Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2018 (EST)

Deep State

I will agree with your removal of the word "theory", but I did add the phrase "(or are believed to control)" because there are many conservative Christians who are not totally convinced that the deep state really exists. I believe my edits will be a happy medium between those who hold to the deep state view and those who do not. Quidam65 (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2018 (EST)

I kept most of your "is believed/considered" wording (except for the first sentence, which is unnecessary as the first sentence already makes clear that "deep state" is a term and not necessarily reality. I found most of your other changes to be too wordy and unnecessary, so I reverted some of it. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2018 (EST)
I looked at your revisions and all you did was revert to your original article, with a few minor edits to try to convince me that you really took my suggestions into consideration. Basically what you did to the article is like putting wood filler and new paint on a house with termite rot. I've dealt with folks like you over on "the other site", who think that once they write an article, it's perfect and can't accept any changes to it. I'm not going to waste time with this one any more; clearly you're trying to espouse tinfoil hat conspiracy theory under the guise of "Christian conservatism". Quidam65 (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2018 (EST)
Much of your changes involved inserting parenthetical notes, which I think made the article more bloated than it had to be. The "or are believed to control" phrase in the first sentence was simply unnecessary and overemphasized your disbelief in the deep state. The part about Wall Street was cited to a good research article, so I don't think we need the "is believed" language for that. But I will still see if I can incorporate more of your edits.
About the existence of the deep state, it and the drive for one-world government are things that should be common and uncontroversial knowledge -- but people (both supporters and detractors) "conspiracize" these things and that's how accusations of me wearing a tinfoil hat come about. Look at the evidence -- most of our society (except theologically conservative Christians, most of them probably being premillennialist) accept the Idea of Progress, adopted during the Enlightenment Era. They believe that humanity is progressing for the better, and that this will lead to a one-world utopia with world peace and freedom for humanity (read Kant, for example). Thus, they believe that national identity, subsidiarity, and national sovereignty are growing useless and antiquated and actually are impediments to this utopia. This flows into their policies -- advancing international organizations, taking away national sovereignty, etc. As for the deep state, just look at the whole DOJ/FBI stuff going on right now, or the fact that Republicans and Democrats hire administration personnel from the same group of organizations -- CFR, Trilateral, etc.
The garbage that there is some secret conspiracy by liberals to take over the world, that their motives are malevolent, that they want to do evil, that this is a short-term project, and that the Illuminati is involved with all this -- this is all garbage perfectly fit for "the other site". In reality, the drive for a one-world utopia is one of the fundamental philosophical views in our culture, and liberals openly see it as natural/normal/benign (and they're in it for the long haul). --1990'sguy (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2018 (EST)

Suggested Name Change for Christmas and Easter Catholic

I propose changing this to "Christmas and Easter Christian", since the phenomenon of persons attending church on those days is by no means limited to Catholics. Quidam65 (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2018 (EST)

I disagree. I recommend that a separate article entitled "Christmas and Easter Christian" be created -- C&E Catholicism is a notable concept on its own right, enough to have its own article. I think an article on C&E Christianity in general would be a good addition. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2018 (EST)
What's the difference? Both are the same phenomenon -- "so-called" Christian believers who attend only during those two holidays (or weddings and funerals). The current article is fine, it just needs to be revised to not pick on one branch of Christianity. Quidam65 (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2018 (EST)
I've heard Roman Catholics specifically mentioned much more than other Christians when hearing about this "phenomenon." But I will ask another editor of his opinion on this. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2018 (EST)

Campaign promises


The thought occurred to me that Wikipedia does not normally catalog campaign promises.(It never has, that I have seen) Elections there follow a formula of "what did they actually do after getting elected" and election results - which is both boring and completely useless, because we have a big problem with people running for office one way and then governing another way. This leaves a glaring hole of accountability with all of our politicians and it also offers us an opportunity to distinguish ourselves from Wikipedia. What do you think about this? I made a few changes here as an example start. Progressingamerica (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2018 (EST)

I think your suggestion is a great idea -- we have too many politicians who make really great promises during election campaigns, but they later act like they never even made those promises. When Rauner and his GOP primary opponent (Jeanne Ives) sat down with the Chicago Tribune editorial board a few days ago, Rauner said that he never promised he would veto a major pro-abortion bill that he ultimately signed (he actually explicitly promised he would multiple times).[14][15]
I can also think of Sen. Thom Tillis of NC who campaigned against amnesty in 2014 and is now advocating for a "conservative" amnesty bill (though it's inferior to the Goodlatte bill).
I support your suggestion. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2018 (EST)


Hi, I just wanted to ask you why you have removed my entry on the article of the Freedom Party of Austria. The Kreisky–Peter–Wiesenthal affair is an important event in the history of this party that should not be discreeted.--JoeyJ (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2018 (EST)

First off, the info was inserted right in the middle of a paragraph discussing the FPO's ideological development and alliance with the SPO. Your info was out of place.
Second, the info was unduly wordy. I am sick of seeing the media and leftists do everything in their power to tie right-wing conservative parties like the FPO to Nazi Germany, such as by unduly emphasizing those aspects of the parties and calling them "far-right", "extreme right", "ultra-right", etc. By American conservative standards, these parties are actually quite moderate, and for those of us who realize that Nazism is a vastly overrated threat (placed alongside climate change by the Left), such parties have clearly moved away from their pasts.
I don't want our articles to accept the left-wing narratives of these right-wing populist parties. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2018 (EST)
Well, all the informations I have put in the article were confirmed with trustworthy sources. Simon Wiesenthal who accused the FPÖ leader Friedrich Peter of being part in a unit which committed massacres against jews, was himself a Conservative. Wiesenthal supported the (at that time very conservative) Austrian People's Party. So it is not easy to label his accusations as "left-wing narratives". I am also pretty sure that the Conservative government of Israel does not spread "left-wing propaganda" if they criticize the party for its charged history. Instead of simply removing facts from the article, you might emphasize how the FPÖ moved away from its past.--JoeyJ (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2018 (EST)
Israel is a Jewish state, so issues related to the Holocaust are sensitive to them. But as much as I support Israel and its right-wing government, Israel's position toward the FPO is irrational, and they are unduly obsessed with Nazism like Western Europe is. Israel's opinion on the FPO means very little because of the context -- it's easy to offend Israel on matters like this.
About Wiesenthal, I don't know anything about him, but him supporting the OVP does not mean much to me. If the party were "very conservative", why did it support the EU, Maastricht Treaty, Schengen Agreement, etc.
And yes, these are the narratives promoted by the Left, the establishment, and the media. These are the same people who were comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler during the election campaign and who tried to smear Breitbart News as anti-Semite (despite loads of evidence to the contrary), among many other cases. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2018 (EST)
Just because these "narratives" are promoted by the Left it does not mean that they are wrong. I can ensure you that Simon Wiesenthal was never a supporter of left-wing policies. As I already told you it would be better to emphasize the current measures by Strache to reappraise the controversial history of this party instead of denying it.--JoeyJ (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2018 (EST)
They're wrong -- they overemphasize every small and petty incident related to parties like the FPO that allude to Nazi Germany. Their point in doing so is to make it seem like that if we elect these people/parties into power (including Donald Trump), we'll be repeating 1933 all over again and will usher in the end of freedom in Europe -- never mind that Germany is still enforcing the Nazi ban on homeschooling, or that many Western European countries have free speech restrictions even on topics like Islam and homosexuality, or etc. Conservapedia will not go along with the media -- we acknowledge that parties like the FPO are conservative and/or right-wing (not "far-right" or "neo-Nazi") and the best choice in order to protect/expand freedom and protect European culture/patriotism. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2018 (EST)


Can you create this article: Donald Trump's major achievements? Conservative (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2018 (EST)

This seems like a good idea, and I will do it. I won't do it immediately, since I have a lot of other things to do, but I will create it soon. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2018 (EST)
OK. Thanks. Conservative (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2018 (EST)

I'm very sorry about the article. If it make you feel like a advertisement. However, everything that is state is true. Thank you for your understanding. Pleased assist by make any corrections. That you think is necessary. When your time is most convenient.

Your brother in Christ, Luke

Thanks for your message, but the article I deleted is not acceptable for Conservapedia. There is nothing I can do to change that, unless you receive coverage from good sources (Breitbart, Fox, etc.). I'm keeping the other article for now, since it's one I can imagine keeping, but I'm discussing it with other editors to see what to ultimately do about it. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2018 (EST)

Could you add some categories to my page please? Willow Smith (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2018 (EST)

Response to your complaints

From what appears EVERY time someone creates a new page or edits an existing one:

"Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here."

If the real rule is "any contributions by Conservapedia administrators -- no matter how good, bad, or ugly they may be -- are fixed for all time and never to be altered", then make that the rule. But don't invite someone to improve things, then complain because they do. Quidam65 (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2018 (EST)

Your bolding does not improve things. Also, nobody reverted your turning pages into redirects -- it's just a good idea to let people know before making major unilateral changes. If your complaint is that I'm messaging you about these things, then you have no real complaint at all. If you make edits here, you (like I was, and still am to an extent) are bound to be messaged about these things, which other editors do with the intention of improving others' editing. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2018 (EST)
Additionally, administrators and editors alike must watch the activity of others, especially newer editors. A few people have the hobby of trying to vandalize CP in any way possible, so excuse us if we sound cynical or obstinate, but some "new users" are actually just the same vandals as always. Since we don't really know you yet, we do our best to assume good intent, but can't afford to ignore what seems to be odd behavior.
I'm sure you'll do fine, if you just listen to the recommendations of others and keep improving content. Thank you for your efforts, and for understanding! --David B (TALK) 17:16, 6 March 2018 (EST)

Thank you for the intro

Just wanted to say thank you for the welcome! PS--Do you know what an eagle does when a storm approaches? Bcarlin (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

Double standard article is now unprotected

1990sguy, I unprotected the Double standard article.Conservative (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2018 (EDT)

Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 11:43, 3 April 2018 (EDT)

Regarding the Whale article

Hello, I would like to know what caused you to revert my edits to the Whale article, and what I could do in the future to avoid this.--Cetacean (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

First off, I did not revert everything -- not even close. I reverted what appeared to be unnecessary wordiness on your part, along with your insertion of evolutionist-favored terms ("evolutionary biologists" instead of "evolutionists"--believe it or not, but people who believe in a young Earth can be evolutionary biologists too). If you keep your wording as concise as possible and if you choose your wording while keeping in mind that this is a conservative-Christian encyclopedia (thus, using terms favored by conservatives and Christians), then you won't be reverted. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
OK, thanks for letting me know. I'll keep that in mind. I think I was correct about Darwin's views, though - could I reinstate that part?--Cetacean (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
Fine, but only if you change that part. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
Done. Thank you!--Cetacean (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

Thanks for your edits

Thanks for cleaning up the edits to Biblical scientific foreknowledge. I was planning to do likewise.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2018 (EDT)

You're welcome, happy to help! --1990'sguy (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2018 (EDT)

Ummm... how?

Ok... if not supernatural then how is evolution a folklore genre? I don't understand... Do you go to your doctor... Do you believe in evidence based medicine? If so, are you aware that many medicines and treatment methods are derived from experiment on animals... In your viewpoint why? If animals are COMPLETELY unrelated to us IN ANY WAY... then what is the point of experimenting and more importantly, why do those experiments help us develop pills and treatment of diseases? Why do the animals most close to us suffer from related diseases? Why do chimps suffer from HIV and not cockroaches? Just coincidence that our nearest relative is the one who suffers from problems more close to us? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2018 (EDT)

Things for you to note

Ok... thanks... I feel like there are a couple of things you have to know about potholer54... First, he DOES NOT discuss the political regulations on climate change ( in other words, he maintains that political part of the debate (whether conservative or not) is NOT his business. Also, he has criticized leftists for blowing up the effects of climate change (he has frequently said that science does not support earth being destroyed by climate change since in history there have been higher CO2 levels)... these are the reasons why I felt that my wording was correct, but I will not start arguing. Do as you wish. I only ask that if you modify my article please try expanding it (there are enough stubs and short articles here), and cite sources. Even if the sources would not be considered legitimate (by other's standards), citing the sources makes the article look good. I see too many articles, where the writer goes on and on without citing a single source.

About evolution. I do NOT agree with everything here. But I understand your mission. And I understand that people here feel differently and it is NOT my mission to undermine your work. I simply add and create pages which I think Conservapedia lacks, and I try to write from neutral point of view (more experienced people can edit it to sound more conservative, I do not want to seem like a troll).

I did as you commanded. I know the wiki that shall not be named is not welcome here, but I wanted people to have another way to contact me. Anyways, it is removed --Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

Responded on your talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

1)Yes... there are several instances of him trying to take the politics out of it... I'll send them later

2)When you say he "criticizes skepticism" as opposed to "denialism" the reader may have the impression that potholer is against being skeptical when in fact he is against what he considers to be denialsim... He is pro free speech, he welcomes questions, I have even spoken with him at length months ago. That is why I wrote what I wrote.

3)That's ok. While my interests change very unpredictably and rapidly, recently I am more interested in history, pseudohistory and archaeology, pseudoarchaeology articles.

4)I understand... I will obey. But just for curiosity, can I know where does that rule originate from? I have read the Guidelines and the Commandments and I did not see any mention of the site which calls itself that which it thinks Conservapedia is not? I do obey, and I respect, but just for interest, where is that rule documented and what is the purpose (since you seem to tolerate other anti-Conservapedia wikis like Lieberapedia) --Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

Responded again on your talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
OK... Is there a way for me to add images (illustrations) to my articles? How do I do that and what is CP policy on that? Are google images, wiki images ok? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
You can post requests at Conservapedia:Image upload requests. User:DavidB4 usually uploads the requests. If the image has a license that allows us to use it, we can upload it. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

Blocked me

Hey... 1)I thought that the ban meant that I was actually banned, meaning the site would prevent me from editing, so when I saw that I could edit, I thought it was ok... I did not know that you meant I should stay away from those topics. I simply thought the article used to many words, so I made it simple and more encyclopedic.

2)Your addition to my article is also written, don't get me wrong, a little too simply. I understand that editors here do not accept the scientific consensus on evolution, but at least you can write it more encyclopedically, like you state that scientists say that humans turned from dumb to intelligent and turned to farmers... That sounds like something a 12 year old would write... Can't you make it sound more scientific. I mean, disagree with it, but at least a)represent it correctly b)write it in a grown-up manner...

3)Why did you delete my "Gay Nazis" article... From what I understand, that is pseudo historical and Hitler hated gays and persecuted them?

By the way, thanks for a reasonable block time... I thought I might be blocked for another two years without a chance to explain myself --Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2018 (EDT)

1) Topic bans mean you're not allowed to edit a topic, not that you don't have the ability to do so. Besides, regardless of your apparent misunderstanding, you removed content that you disagreed with, something I told you repeatedly not to do.
2) Disapproving of my wording isn't a good reason to remove the entire thing, especially considering that it is one of the few examples in the article that secularists hate. Besides, we're supposed to give reasonably simple explanations when writing (see Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style). My explanation is what the "scientific/historical consensus" essentially holds, and if that's the case, there's no reason to make it read like it was copied out of a prestigious journal. But regardless, I will see if there's any wording that I could change.
3) It cited two explicitly left-wing sources that use this example to advocate for social-leftist policies and to criticize modern American conservatives. Surely there must be more apolitical sources out there about this? Also, regardless, it's good not to confuse Adolf Hitler's opposition to homosexuality (and the policies that came out of that) with homosexuality's presence in the Nazi Party. What I mean is that some high-ranking people in the Nazi Party, who helped found and build up the party (most notably Ernst Röhm), were homosexuals, and it's more complicated than "Nazis hated homosexuals."
4) You're welcome. But also a warning: if you don't improve (and I hope you do improve), I will progressively increase the block lengths. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2018 (EDT)
Ok, fine... But out of curiosity, does everyone on this site share your views on evolution, black holes, relativity, atheists etc? Is this site representative of Conservative (and/or Christian) values in general or a very specific type of sense? Do mainstream conservatives reference this site as an authority? And also, is there a rule (formal) where this has to be YEC or strictly Christian? Or is it an unspoken rule? Or does it depend on editors? I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes, I am genuinely interested. One more thing, you told me that I could NOT become an admin/sysop because there were very few, yet you clearly have more authority than me. You block and unblock me at will... How can I get that authority? Thanks! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2018 (EDT)
No, not everyone shares CP's views on these issues -- in fact, we've had some liberals and atheists edit CP on relatively good terms. However, most editors here (including myself, though I'm agnostic on the relativity info and opposed to the CBP) share the vast majority of CP's stated views. As the owner of CP, Andy obviously has the right to choose what it says.
CP is representative of, for lack of a better term, what I would call "full conservatism", rather than cafeteria conservatism, where people pick and choose what parts of conservatism they support and what they don't. There are many people (especially in Europe, but also here) who say they are conservative but share many views and even many underlying presuppositions of the globalist Left. CP is pretty consistent with our support for limited/small government and staying true to the values of the founding fathers.
It really depends on who you mean when you say "mainstream conservative" -- that's a slippery term that can mean different things.
I'm not an admin -- I'm technically an assistant admin, since I have many but not all sysop rights. Even getting those took a while, and it's all at Andy's discretion. If you become a good editor who respects CP's perspective and does not challenge them in any way, you'll probably get some rights eventually. But you were just blocked twice, and you're still having problems learning how to edit CP without undermining its perspective -- I don't think you should count on being promoted anytime soon -- focus on other things here for now. CP has a significantly stricter sysop policy than "the other website", and for good reason -- we're the target of parodists and other people who regularly seek to vandalize and undermine us, and we want to ensure that we don't have to deal with a parodist sysop or anything like that. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2018 (EDT)


Sorry, you'll have to explain that more... What do I not do? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

Left Wing Sources

Hi... I do not usually look at the political leanings... I cite sources which I am SURE state something that is verifiable... Though, SPLC might be left leaning, I am SURE they can get Richard Spencer's birth date right... So I cited as a source for his birth date... The RWW, was a YOUTUBE video, that is the one I found first, I don't cite them to support left leaning politics, just facts that are verifiable by ANY honest person... I repeat SPLC might be left, but I am sure they can get a BIRTH DATE correctly! So that is what I cited, but do as you please! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

Surely, there are better sources that give Spencer's birthdate than SPLC. Also, those sources are not merely "left-leaning" (that designation more properly belongs to something like "The Atlantic") -- they are far-left partisan interest groups. They have no business being here. As a conservative encyclopedia, it makes sense to predominantly rely on conservative sources (or, at least, apolitical sources). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

Arguing With You

Lol.. You are trying to get me to argue about evolution... but the problem is that if I do that I (and ONLY I, ie NOT both of us) will get blocked... It's kinda dirty that you on one hand basically provoke me to argument and if I do respond to your arguments you have the authority to block me... Assuming, this time you really were interested and WILL NOT block me for simply RESPONDING TO WHAT YOU TOLD ME... It is my humble opinion, based on what you have said here, you do not understand what The Theory of Evolution actually is... You seem to think that evolution says that monkeys turned human and that macro evolution means that a new organism appears over time, although macro evolution is THE SAME as micro evolution only on a larger time scale (yes as simple as that)... You have made it clear NOT to correct these errors (ERRORS) so I respect conservapedia rules... I respect what you told me and I keep away from stuff that we disagree on and keep contributing what I can in good faith...

Last time we got into this argument, I pointed out a really good and simple thing... I told you how we can see the familial pattern and the animals closer to us suffer more ailments like us... I also pointed out that experiments on animals closer to us help us find treatment, this was a good point to think about... Instead you chose to ignore it... So I did NOT want to get blocked, so I simply let it go (again, respecting your opinions)... Yet you show NONE of this respect calling 200 years of research "junk science" simply because you have been unable to process this information... @Karajou is YEC too and he thinks that evolution is fake, but he does not push it, and he is not calling me out on "believing" (or understanding, as I prefer) evolution... He simply keeps what he believes to himself... I can respect that!

I am ready to respond if you have questions... But only if I am guaranteed not to get blocked like last time (after I RESPONDED to QUESTIONS addressed to me FOR 2 years)! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

On a side note, I happen to know of a CP user who openly created a RW account. They were immediately interrogated on evolution as well.
To the main issue, though, microevolution is not the same as macroevolution. You should really do some research on the subject. There is a significant difference between a change in fur length, and a change in species. That and other issues I disagree with you aside, I don't think you will or should get blocked simply for stating your opinion. As long as you continue to respect our polices regarding mainspace articles, you should be safe. (I don't know the details of the block, but I suspect there was more going on than just an angry response to your opposing opinion.)
Anyway, I'm cutting in on this conversation, and I should really just let 1990'sguy speak for himself. --David B (TALK) 22:00, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
@Kingdamian1: I am not trying to argue with you about evolution. First off, I explicitly tried to end the discussion on Andy's talk page because I didn't want to use it arguing about political positions. Also, I was more focused on your political positions. We all know what you believe on evolution. I was tempted to ask clarifying questions about your political views, but I thought it wasn't worth it.
Also, I actually don't care whether you believe in evolution. What I care about is the fact that you are apparently unable to put away your bias when editing CP. Your edits on the Potholer54, Pseudohistory, and Macroevolution inserted pro-evolution bias into CP (and keep in mind that your first edit after joining was creating a debate page on evolution where the first sentence insulted CP). As I noted elsewhere, you inserted bias on other topics in your edits. I don't care about your personal views on any of this (there are several CP users who believe in evolution) -- the fact that you are struggling to make your editing compatible with CP's point of view is a problem. Hopefully, you're learning.
Claiming that I'm "unable to process this information" on evolution shows how little you actually know about me, and it's not a good strategy for staying on this site. I've thought a lot about this issue, and its strengthened my belief that the Bible is authoritative in all it says and that science affirms it as true (rather than Ephesians 6:14).
DavidB4's comment above is correct, and to clarify to him, Kingdamian1 was blocked (by Karajou and me) for more than simply giving an opposing opinion. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

I CLEARLY have it on my page that I am a LIBERTARIAN... according to Conservapedia, that is what you would consider conservative, you keep telling me I admitted I was NOT conservative, where Conservapedia COUNTS Libertarianism as conservative... About evolution, I do NOT think you do not think about the subject, I think you look at it FROM A SINGLE point of view. I suspect that your view about evolution comes from strictly YEC... The first of your many mistakes, is saying that evolution=atheism, when in fact, OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of religious people agree with evolution. If you really are honest and interest in BOTH sides and NOT JUST ONE... there are MANY videos you can watch...

I have these 2 videos I usually recommend as they are NOT boring and fun and also explain things in easy to understand terms... If you are truly interested in BOTH sides, try to seat through these two videos. Watch them in order (1st and then 2nd) as one is kind of answering the rebuttal that followed (the rebuttal you may have in mind when watching the first one)... If you can sit through both of them calmly without getting agitated (They are NOT boring and easy to understand, filled with humor), please, get back to me and tell me (after watching BOTH completely) how has your view changed about what evolution actually is!

--Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

KingDamian, you are bringing back an argument that has been refuted again and again and again. I've seen the videos you posted, and all it does is once more post an assumption that we must accept evolution as true based upon the word of a scientist who said so. So I'm going to ask you once, and I expect a straight up or down YES or NO answer, and it's based on the horse line at the end of video 2: DID YOU PHYSICALLY SEE THE EOHIPPUS CHANGE INTO THE EQUUS? Keep in mind that I will not accept as an answer anyone pointing to the fossils themselves and saying we must assume a change took place. Karajou (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

Hi... No I have not seen it... But do you realize that if I had that would be THE SINGLE MOST POTENT evidence against evolution? Do you realize that? If I had actually observed the change that would be the single best evidence against evolution NOT for it... AGAINST IT! Do I make myself clear? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
And there you go. You haven't seen it happen. And neither has every single scientist who ever lived; they didn't see it happen either. And we have to sit here and take their word - and your's, I might add - that evolution did take place because they eyeballed a bunch of fossils and said a change took place? We have to assume the change happened because these guys put these fossils in a nice little line-up? This website will not accept evolution based on hearsay evidence; we will call evolution what it actually is - JUNK SCIENCE; and we will post direct evidence that contradicts what these supporters say about it. Do I make myself clear? Karajou (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

I am not here to argue... I like CP... I think you are worthy of a response, so please don't block me, Brian. Evolution has not been observed? Did you watch it from beginning to end? Evolution Has been observed... What you asked me was if we had observed a SPECIFIC species change over millions of years with my eyes... no I have not. But I have not observed ancient English evolve into modern english either, i have not observed Latin change into Italian either... and you have not observed George Washington s life... so according to your logic, all of this must be junk science too Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

No, evolution has not been observed; you are arguing, and you have been arguing since day one, when you know full well where we stand on the subject. It's stopping now. And I'm not going to stand for someone who demands we look at pretty pictures just to get us to believe in an assumption; we might as well assume a monkey evolved from a living room wall because Little Billy drew one on it with his crayons. Karajou (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
I agree with Karajou and DavidB4 (on his own talk page). Kingdamian1, your comments show you think I'm some "low-information" person who lives in a bubble who will immediately change my mind once I'm "enlightened" (emphasis on the scare quotes) -- your assumption is complete BS (it shows you have no clue who I am). I tried to end a discussion on Andy's talk page and you brought it up again on my talk page (and I didn't even have to be present for it to heat up). --1990'sguy (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
Also, I just saw this study published in a scientific journal (by evolutionists, with an evolutionist perspective) that admits that there's no correlation between one's level of education or intelligence and their acceptance of evolution. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
Here's a link to an article responding to the "You don't understand real evolution" argument: [16] AiG Also has many articles on the many "proofs" of Evolution that have been used ad Nauseum to attack creationism, such as this one about bacteria: [17] Here's and article explaining why the changes that are actually observed are not even really "evolution": [18] And here's a comprehensive list of some of the most common attacks against Creationist assertions: [19]
The thing is, Creationists are very well aware of the weapons used against them by Evolutionists and one of the biggest mistakes evolutionists make is assuming that Evolutionists know some critical piece of information that is a "knockout punch" to Creationism, when in reality, Creationists are very well aware of these assertions and have written many articles responding to them. Shobson20 (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

One more thing. As Frank Turek, one of the foremost Christian apologists, says "Science doesn't say anything, scientists do." Whenever anyone says "Science says that..." what it should really be is "based on their interpretations of certain observations, scientists conclude..." When people say "Science says..." they are committing the fallacy of reification. A detailed explanation can be found here: [20] Despite KingDamian1's claims that he is "not trolling" he has carried a rather rude and condescending tone typical of those who attack Creationism. Shobson20 (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2018 (EDT)

As User:Kingdamian1 is a new user, I feel like he/she should given another chance, rather than indeffed. After all, he/she seems really interested in improving Conservapedia and creating articles here, as evidenced from his/her multiple comments even on Wikipedia, requesting his unblock and his/her desire to change. Would there be any objections to me unblocking him/her, with him/her understanding that he/she is topic-banned from any science-related articles (since this seems to be the reason other editors are upset with him/her)? I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:07, 23 May 2018 (EDT)
We gave him a chance, and he had more than NPOV problems (which were in and of themselves annoying, since it was my role to check his articles). I was really annoyed at his expectation that he could be instantly promoted to adminship status (and his apparent desperation at it, since he messaged several editors several times about it), when it is very hard and takes a long time even to become an assistant admin. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2018 (EDT)


How do you ping someone? (i responded to you on my talk page) Qw23 (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2018 (EDT)

I don't think CP has a ping option. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2018 (EDT)


I'm new to this project and I do need help with this sentence: Mike Pompeo and the Trump administration helped secure the release of Kim Dong Chul, Kim Hak Song and Tony Kim from North Korea.Andrew O'Reilly, Elizabeth Llorente. "Trump administration finds success in bringing home detained Americans", Associated Press, Fox News, 9 May 2018.  The three men described their “deep appreciation” for the Trump administration for help freeing them.Dorell, Oren. "'God Bless America': Freed American prisoners thankful after being released from North Korea", USA Today, 9 May 2018. Retrieved on 10 May 2018. “We thank God, and all our families and friends who prayed for us and for our return” </ref>

~ {{{2}}}

I believe it should go under Donald Trump achievements: Foreign policy but for 2018, which section do you believe it fits best under? Also, how do sources work here? --MaddieJ (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2018 (EDT)

I already added this to the article, but I will look through your sources to see if more can be added. References could be surrounded by ref tags, like this : <ref>[citation]</ref> --1990'sguy (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2018 (EDT)
Hi 1990'sguy I just want to let you know I'm glad I'm learning how to edit here. I just recently added the ISIS statements on Justin Trudeau and also mentioned Maxime Waters on this edit [21]. I will allow you to monitor me if any edit I do is good or bad, and I will message you if I need anything. Regards.

--MaddieJ (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2018 (EDT)

OK, thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2018 (EDT)

A Message for that British Troll

Just in case (s)he makes another sock account, (s)he should know that campaign finance laws are unfair and D'Souza was directly targeted because of his unpopular opinions. Also, in the case of Roy Moore, there is only accusations and hearsay. That troll must also ignore the things that Leftist politicians did:

Bill Clinton: raped, molested and abused several women.

Hillary Clinton: Deflected responsibility for Bengazi, kept emails on her own private servers illegally, and covered up her husband's illicit affairs.

And I'm sure you could name more. Shobson20 (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2018 (EDT)

Conservapedia's Opinion on Joseph McCarthy

Hello, I noticed that you reverted my edit to the Joseph McCarthy page. I made the edit to align with the views expressed in a news story I saw in the main page that described McCarthy as "two of a kind" with Robert Mueller. I feel that Conservapedia should be consistent, so I would appreciate it if the news story was removed/replaced, or the McCarthy article was changed.--Cetacean (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2018 (EDT)

I added sources from a reliable conservative source backing up the article. Besides, the sentence as it is now is more neutrally-worded than your wording (I think even the person who posted the news blurb could agree with it). Bottom line: the article is fine, but it's not worth fighting what is a good analogy (considering that we have many leftist readers who hate McCarthy) on the news feed. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2018 (EDT)

About draft

I just replied to your email. Its for here, not for Wikipedia. --MaddieJ 14:45, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

Brian and Ed Krassenstein

I created the article Brian and Ed Krassenstein. If you would like to do improvements and better grammar to it, feel free to do so. --MaddieJ (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

Barack Obama's achievements

See: Essay: President Barack Obama's achievements

It required a lot less work than your article Donald Trump achievements. :)Conservative (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

Ha! And the little that Obama actually did is being wiped away by President Trump right as we speak! :) --1990'sguy (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2018 (EDT)


I didnt find a way to send a message here so i assume, once its a wiki, that im supposed to edit this page when i want to contact you. Im not sure if i comment on the articles talk page, would it inform you? I wanted to ask you about your edits of Finland's article, noticed few grammar mistakes that you corrected but didnt get why the day of independence cant be on the page? Then wanted to mention hat the the Lapps is a same name as Sami, so its like mention the same ethnic group twice. Then i wondered why the population of the capital city shouldnt be mentioned? The name of party Perussuomalaiset is in english "the Finns Party" not "True Finns". There is also few smaller issues i will come back to them later. So would be nice to have a talk about these. Thanks. -Karjalainen

First off, thank you for editing, and for messaging me here! The problem with the date of independence is that the infobox does not have a parameter (at least that I'm aware of) for the date of independence. This means that if you add the date of independence like what you did, the infobox will not actually show it to whoever is reading.
I was not aware that the Lapps and Sami are the same. I will fix this. I will also fix the part about the Finns Party, since you're also right on this.
I just didn't think it was necessary to list the population of Helsinki, especially since the population keeps changing and few editors are available to change it. But, if you want to add the population on the Helsinki article, you are free to do so.
I noticed that you updated the economic information using Euros, rather than dollars. The reason why I changed it back is that most Conservapedia readers live in the United States, and the dollar is obviously what they use (and they probably don't know the exchange rate). We can mention the numbers in Euros, but we should also use dollars. Since I don't know the exchange rate, I did not add both.
I hope all this helps! --1990'sguy (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2018 (EDT)

Thanks for answering. I dont know if this info can be found but is CP based on the MediaWiki platfom? If yes, is it being updated when never versions come out? Scrolling around some tutorial pages i found a template of countries where i took that "established" tag from, why does it exist if it doesnt show? How do you edit the sources? I wanted to add but i dont see the other sources listed there? Is there any plans to add to CP also other languages? Is there a way to add both mi2/km2 or $/€ ? Would be nice to attrack also non-american readers and make this website even bigger and popular, maybe one day to replace wikipedia as the biggest. I will write the issues concerning Finland on the talk page of Finland, please refer to there. -Karjalainen

Sorry for the belated response. CP is based on the MediaWiki platform, but we use a different infobox than Wikipedia -- we didn't just copy and paste their infobox. We do update it, but I don't know how often.
You can add sources by putting them in in between a tag like this <ref>[source]</ref>
There are no plans to make CP in a different language that I am aware of, but I recommend asking Andy Schlafly, the site's owner here: User talk:Aschlafly.
Unfortunately, I do not know how to add both mi2/km2 or $/€ to the infobox.
I will take a look at your message on the Finland talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2018 (EDT)

Five solas

Hearty thanks, 1990'sguy, for your assist with Five Solas! --Dataclarifier (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2018 (EDT)

You're welcome! --1990'sguy (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2018 (EDT)

requested article: Trumponomics

Article request: Trumponomics. It would be a nice complementary article to our Obamunism article. Conservative (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

I'll see what I can do. The Donald Trump achievements: Economic policy and labor (along with the trade sub-article) give a pretty good overview of his economic policies and the effects of those policies. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2018 (EDT)


I don't have yours, either. Use this: RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:07, 15 August 2018 (EDT)

Mine is on my user page. You can verify there. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2018 (EDT)

Capital Punishment

By quoting Genesis 9:5 you are confusing what God is permitted to do versus what man may do and how man is to conduct himself in relation to his fellow man. It is also inaccurate to write that Jesus had nothing to say on the subject of capital punishment when he directly called into question the teaching of "eye for an eye."Tulip Festival (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2018 (EDT)

No, Genesis 9:5-6 clearly says that the just punishment for taking a human life is that one's own life be taken. The proportionate and just punishment for murder is not jail time, nor community service. You're confusing what the Bible says regarding personal conduct and governmental policy, which is not personal. I recommend you read these two links: [22][23] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2018 (EDT)

HTTP -->HTTPS update

As you probably saw, I have moved this list to: User:DavidB4-bot/HTTPS URL update project. Thank you for your additions to the apologies for adding your entries to the new page under may name. I hope you don't mind. Please feel free to continue adding to that list. --David B (TALK) 23:45, 10 September 2018 (EDT)

Thanks, and thanks for creating this list! --1990'sguy (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2018 (EDT)

i try

More than a single sentence? Okay I can try. Knockforpeace (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2018 (EDT)

Sorry i have a disorder. I will try to add more. Knockforpeace (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
See Conservapedia:How to create and maintain high-quality articles --1990'sguy (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
Tutoring avalible? By you? Knockforpeace (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
Read and follow all of the links provided at the very top of this talk page. That will help you. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2018 (EDT)

Logician account

It wasn’t a troll. Could you unblock it? Also, I removed Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica because it’s supposedly recommended reading. Thing is though that it’s such dense and complicated symbolic logic that no one would actually be able to understand it. It shouldn’t be recommended reading. Anyway, thanks. Anaxagoras (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2018 (EDT)

I will unblock the account (though I will procedurally block the "Anaxagoras" one), but do not remove the Principia Mathematica book. It may be dense and complicated, and it may be to the extent that laypeople can't understand it, but it should remain for those who can understand it and who will find it useful. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2018 (EDT)

Re: Kavanaugh smear article name change

A high proportion of CP's readers lean left. I changed the title because I thought the new title would engender less cognitive resistance to these readers and therefore be more likely to change their mind. In addition, I thought the new title sounded more encyclopedic.Conservative (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2018 (EDT)

That's understandable, but the article is not about opposition to Kavanaugh in general, it's specifically about the accusations made against him by left-wing people (as opposed to people criticizing him with his judicial philosophy being the stated reason). I'm not opposed to the page being moved, but it would be a title that makes it clear that the article is specifically about the attempted rape allegations against him. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2018 (EDT)
The allegations against him are a joke. It is a reflection that the Democrats are a sad joke. All the corroborating witnesses say the events never happened.Conservative (talk) 10:14, 24 September 2018 (EDT)
Exactly -- they're politically-motivated character assassination, nothing more. Thus, "Kavanaugh smear" is an appropriate title for the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2018 (EDT)
I have chimed in here. --Ed Poor Talk 10:28, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

Re: Switzerland vs. Britain

I believe you have visited Switzerland.

Below is a post I made to some left leaning atheists/evolutionists.


Don't think I haven't noticed your silence on Swiss trains being more timelier than British trains. What's your excuse for British trains being less timelier than Swiss trains?

Just admit it. The industrious and wealthy Swiss, who have one of the highest rates of creationism in Europe, have a better, wealthier and more efficient society than post Darwinism Britain.

By the way, deny that Britain is the fountainhead of Darwinism and lose all credibility!

Main page right post in question

The British recently had a hard time getting their trains to run on time.[24]

According to Wikipedia, "The Swiss rail network is noteworthy for its density, its coordination between services, its integration with other modes of transport, timeliness and a thriving domestic and trans-alp freight system."

Why can't Britain, the fountainhead of Darwinism, compete with Switzerland which is known for having one of the highest rates of creationism per capita in Europe?[25]Conservative (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2018 (EDT)

I have dual Swiss citizenship, so yes, I have visited the country multiple times. For the record, some (not many, though) of my relatives there are biblical creationists. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2018 (EDT)

Formatting of quotes

Thanks for the {{cquote}} thing - I had forgotten that template. --Ed Poor Talk 09:15, 26 September 2018 (EDT)

You're welcome -- happy to help! --1990'sguy (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2018 (EDT)

Trumpiantexan is a vandal

There's a Vandal called "Trumpiantexan" Shobson20 (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2018 (EDT)

Why you said this so..

... I don't know if his pro-Marx comments actually make him a communist. He's your typical globalist/liberal European uniparty elite. It is not mine definition but more a true fact. Regards, YortKeldher (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2018 (EDT)

Most liberal/globalist European elites think the same way Juncker does. It would not be a good idea to label them all as communists. They have many of the same goals as communists, but there is some nuance between them (for example, different different tactics/methods, and Juncker and many of his friends are part of "liberal" or "center-right" parties, and seem to like big corporations). Either the "liberal" and "globalist" categories are enough (since liberals and globalists have many similarities with Marxists, like Juncker), or a new category is needed. I prefer the former, as it doesn't imply that liberalism and globalism are too different from Marxism and communism (different strands of the same thing, and the existing categories take the nuances into account). --1990'sguy (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2018 (EDT)

Cesar Sayoc Article

Wouldn’t a person with prudent ethics be willing to discuss whether or not a new article should be deleted prior to deleting said article? Cesar Sayoc is dominating the headlines of America yet you say he is a ‘nobody’? Based on your reasoning the Lee Harvey Oswald article should be deleted immediately.--JLind (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2018 (EDT)

Lee Harvey Oswald has historical significance -- and fortunately, we get the facts right, that he was a left-wing Marxist (a fact many on the Left like to ignore). The Cesar Sayoc guy may be dominating headlines (of the left-wing mainstream media and the Left, which want to capitalize on this single incident of a mentally ill man and put a rug over the many examples of leftist violence in the past couple years) at the moment, but his 15 minutes of fame will soon end and his 58-year jail sentence will soon begin. I let the other administrators know of the dispute over this page, and they will decide soon. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
I got the facts right in the Sayoc article, I hope you are not implying otherwise. I’d like to think the Best of the Public could create an article free from liberal bias. Alas, it looks like the readers of Conservapedia will have to suffice with the liberal slant since you are keen to prevent this educational resource from telling the truth. Sad.--JLind (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
All the facts except that he wasn't a bomber. Per the Associated Press:
7:50 p.m. A law enforcement official says tests have determined that a powder found inside an envelope delivered to CNN along with a pipe bomb was harmless. The official wasn’t authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. New York City’s police commissioner said earlier Wednesday that the package sent to CNN’s offices in Manhattan contained a live explosive and an envelope containing white powder. The FBI said the package was similar to explosives sent to former President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Eric Holder and billionaire George Soros. The package sent to CNN was addressed to former CIA Director John Brennan, a frequent guest on the channel. The official says that parcel contained no note or claim of responsibility. — Tom Hays Associated Press, October 24, 2018
RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:41, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
A man sends bombs through the mail, and in your opinion, he is not a bomber? The director of the FBI is quoted as saying the devices were ‘…not hoax devices’. What, exactly, is your definition of a bomber?--JLind (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
They were too hoax devices. You have terrible reading comprehension. VargasMilan (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

Why did you block me? All I did was state the obvious fact that Joe Manchin is a DINO. he voted to confirm Kavanaugh, confirm Gorsuch, and supports the coal industry. He's even more right-wing than Lisa Murkowski! Libertarianmoderate2 (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

Manchin lives in a state that voted for Trump by 40 points, and he knows it. He's appealing to the people of his state so he doesn't alienate them. Take a broader view, rather than look at the narrow set of issues where he made a big deal of supporting right-of-center people on -- for example, notice how he's voted against many of Trump's conservative circuit court nominees and several cabinet nominees. Also, when there were narrow votes for any nominee or bill, Manchin voted with Democrats -- he only voted with Republicans when his vote wasn't anywhere close to affecting the vote's outcome. And his support for Planned Parenthood is pretty extreme for a red-state Democrat who has claimed to be pro-life. I stand entirely by my reverts, and CP has never considered Murkowski a conservative, AFAIK. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2018 (EDT)
And look at his record with the 2A -- he has a "D" rating from the NRA, a moderate (as opposed to GOA) pro-gun organization -- several Democrats even have better ratings than him.
In short, Manchin only votes with conservatives in high profile votes when his vote is not a deciding factor in whether the bill/nominee will pass. He's not a conservative, and he's in line with the Democrat Party. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

Sorry about that. In the meantime, I'm a very skilled wiki writer who wrote for Wikivoyage for a while, and my skills are exactly what this site needs. I hope you can overlook this disagreement. Libertarianmoderate2 (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2018 (EDT)


I tried to ping you, but it didn't work. I typed {d{Ping|1990'sguy}d} (remove the d's, I added them here so it comes out as text). Libertarianmoderate2 (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2018 (EDT)


Eleonóra Dubiczki is defacing the page on Rightpedia. Shobson20 (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2018 (EDT)

There's another one named Fiala, probably a sock of the same person. Shobson20 (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2018 (EDT)

UN migrant treaty

We're gonna need a UN Migrant Treaty page. To begin, we need a thumbnail sketch what it is, then a list whose all opposed. Do you have any info to help start? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:46, 22 November 2018 (EST)

Yes -- or UN Global Compact on Migration or something like that. Several countries have already said they will leave, so it will take some effort to track them all down. I can help. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2018 (EST)
Coincidentally, I found this article giving a good list: [26] I can create and/or expand the article, if you want. I think the biggest issue will be what the title should be. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2018 (EST)
I'd suggest UN Migrant Treaty, then bolden the formal title; its already being discussed as "the migrant treaty". Moves & redirects can be done as needed. But both the European migrant crisis and 2018 Migrant caravan already need minor subsections or references to it. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:53, 22 November 2018 (EST)
I started it. I will do more work tomorrow, if I have time. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2018 (EST)
If you have two or three minutes, you should see this qued from here. Better yet, all 7 minutes and hear what Lara Logan says. RobSFree Kyle! 05:12, September 26, 2021 (EDT)
Thanks, Rob. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:53, September 26, 2021 (EDT)

Wanna chat?

Hey, I'm curious if I could get to know you. I like your edits. AnnBelleAldaco96 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2018 (EST)

You can either contact me through my CP email address or through this talk page. I won't reveal/discuss personal/private info about myself (obviously), but I'd be happy to talk. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2018 (EST)

Does CP hate video games?

I think the tone of the video games article is a little too critical. If you truly are a 1990's guy, then you probably grew up with video games too. You probably also remember the controversy of video game violence back in the 90s too (perhaps there should be a section in the article on that). Ironically, the members of Congress who pushed for potential legislation were two Democrat senators, Joe Lieberman and Herb Kohl. I was, along with my fellow kids of the 90s, booing and jeering at the old people who knew nothing about video games criticizing our hobby. There is a reason why the article "Essay:Greatest Conservative Video Games" exists. Most of the people who criticize video games are older people who didn't grow up with them. Shobson20 (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2018 (EST)

To be clear, the 1990s was the decade I was born in, so unfortunately, I don't have firsthand knowledge of the controversies of that decade. I played some video games, though not as much as other people, and only on my Gameboy and Nintendo DS, and I lost all interest by the time I turned, roughly, 13.
I have nothing against video games in and of themselves, and I still think positively of some of the games I played. However, I think many of the criticisms of video games -- such as encouraging obesity and staying indoors rather than going outside -- are valid. Also, video game addition appears to be a real problem: [27][28] Those problems probably aren't inherent to video games, though -- they can and are used in good, harmless ways too, as I have experienced. That said, it's not a topic that I have strong feelings on.
About the article itself, it is Andy's choice to have the article the way it is. There is nothing I can do about it -- it would have to be something you would have to discuss with him if it should be changed. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2018 (EST)

Explaination of edits to the page regarding Thomas Aquinas and theft

Did Aquinas endorse theft?

Without the full quote from the Summa Theologica it would appear so, However: Whether it is lawful to steal through stress of need? Objection 1: It would seem unlawful to steal through stress of need. For penance is not imposed except on one who has sinned. Now it is stated (Extra, De furtis, Cap. Si quis): "If anyone, through stress of hunger or nakedness, steal food, clothing or beast, he shall do penance for three weeks." Therefore it is not lawful to steal through stress of need.

Objection 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 6) that "there are some actions whose very name implies wickedness," and among these he reckons theft. Now that which is wicked in itself may not be done for a good end. Therefore a man cannot lawfully steal in order to remedy a need.

Objection 3: Further, a man should love his neighbor as himself. Now, according to Augustine (Contra Mendac. vii), it is unlawful to steal in order to succor one's neighbor by giving him an alms. Therefore neither is it lawful to steal in order to remedy one's own needs.

On the contrary, In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another's property, for need has made it common.

I answer that, Things which are of human right cannot derogate from natural right or Divine right. Now according to the natural order established by Divine Providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succoring man's needs by their means. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law, do not preclude the fact that man's needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor. For this reason Ambrose [*Loc. cit., A[2], OBJ[3]] says, and his words are embodied in the Decretals (Dist. xlvii, can. Sicut ii): "It is the hungry man's bread that you withhold, the naked man's cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man's ransom and freedom."

Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.

Reply to Objection 1: This decretal considers cases where there is no urgent need.

Reply to Objection 2: It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another's property in a case of extreme need: because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need.

Reply to Objection 3: In a case of a like need a man may also take secretly another's property in order to succor his neighbor in need.

"In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another's property, for need has made it common" is not in the Summa Theogica and is therefore inaccurate and misleading. The quote should be:

"It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another's property in a case of extreme need: because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need."

I will therefore change the quote to the correct quotation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JPConservative (talk)

Look again -- both quotes are there, and they're quoted accurately. The article is correct in saying that Aquinas does not take a strong position on property rights as other conservatives (including John Locke, the intellectual father of the founding fathers) held. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2018 (EST)

The quotes used misses out that Thomas Aquinas was referring to those who might die of starvation, not merely out of need. The original quotes in the article imply that he supported "Socialism" which is not so. Aquinas did take a strong stand on property rights, he made one exception, those who face death can take some food (and by implication, water & clothing.) This is the interpretation that the Catholic Church uses and is supported by the majority of Thomists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JPConservative (talk)

Once again, the quote mentioning hunger was already quoted in the paragraph. Also, the paragraph doesn't say that he supported socialism, but that it represented a slippery slope. Either way, his position is weaker than that of some other intellectuals who wrote on property rights. I might (possibly) be OK with a single short sentence/phrase saying that overall he supported property rights, if you can back it up, but the specific info you're citing does not back it up. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2018 (EST)

Yes hunger is mentioned, but the meaning has been distorted, I can assure you that having studied the Summa Theologica in a monastery guided by a Thomist professor that the section on Politic Philosophy is wrong. It is not a correct interpretation of Aquinas's political views. Thomas Aquinas clearly upholds property rights in the Summa Theologica:

I answer that, Two things are competent to man in respect of exterior things. One is the power to procure and dispense them, and in this regard it is lawful for man to possess property. Moreover this is necessary to human life for three reasons. First because every man is more careful to procure what is for himself alone than that which is common to many or to all: since each one would shirk the labor and leave to another that which concerns the community, as happens where there is a great number of servants. Secondly, because human affairs are conducted in more orderly fashion if each man is charged with taking care of some particular thing himself, whereas there would be confusion if everyone had to look after any one thing indeterminately. Thirdly, because a more peaceful state is ensured to man if each one is contented with his own. Hence it is to be observed that quarrels arise more frequently where there is no division of the things possessed.

The second thing that is competent to man with regard to external things is their use. In this respect man ought to possess external things, not as his own, but as common, so that, to wit, he is ready to communicate them to others in their need. Hence the Apostle says (1 Tim. 6:17, 18): "Charge the rich of this world . . . to give easily, to communicate to others," etc.

Yes, I can back up my claims. The quoted I cited are from authorized sites. I have used the quotes as written and provided links, so please explain how I am wrong?

Here is additional proof that Thomas Aquinas upheld property rights —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JPConservative (talk)

I have added further material to refute the idea that the writings of Thomas Aquinas can be used to support Socialism. If you edit or remove it, please first demonstrate that I am wrong. Thank you & God Blessings be with you.

just an idea...

What do you think of coining the term anti-constitutionalist to describe people who oppose constitutionalists? People who oppose free speech, gun rights, due process, etc. There certainly are a lot of them in the upcoming session of Congress.

First, we'd need a working definition, then a list of members with their stated positions. The idea may catch on. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:52, 12 December 2018 (EST)

I like it. What do you think of a definition along the lines of "someone who opposes the rights contained in the Constitution, and by extension, the United States as envisioned by the founding fathers"? This is just a draft proposal, the wording wouldn't be final. Maybe we should note that the Constitution reflects a classical liberal philosophy, showing that these "liberals" reject liberalism? --1990'sguy (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2018 (EST)
Yes. In various articles Justice Kavanaugh is refered to as a constitutionalist, so I suspect we'll be hearing more of term in the future.
Now, advocates for Amending the Constitution wouldn't automatically fall into this category. People who want to abolish the Electoral College or hold a constitutional convention, for example - if that is their single issue. I'm thinking of people who want outright repeal of the 2nd Amendment, advocate free speech suppression and censorship, disrespect due process and the presumption of innocence as in the Kavanaugh and Judge Moore cases, or ignore the 4th Amendment violations of the FBI & DOJ. Anyone who holds two or more of these positions could be considered an anti-constitutionalist.
One more thing, I've discovered that whoever is among the first to create a page with a new term entering the public lexicon, Google algorithms favor and can hold a high ranking for years. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:26, 13 December 2018 (EST)
About the Electoral College and Con Con distinction, it think that's fair, and it would be good to at least make a distinction between the two. We would need to make this clear to readers, though. That said, one could argue that wanting to change the Constitution on something as important as the Electoral College also a rejection of the U.S. as envisioned by the founding fathers. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2018 (EST)
That's right. That's why I'm thinking two or more. Somebody who wants to abolidh the electoral college and repeal gun rights, then refuses due process and presumption of innocence, and is okay with illegal domestic spying, is an anti-constitutionalist. Throw in support for Medicare for All and they call themselves a progressive or Democratic Socialist, it's pretty clear they want to tear down the two party system. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:34, 13 December 2018 (EST)
We shouldn't spell out our criteria on the page before naming names, and if we put everybody on the list who belongs, it would be too long and nobody would read it. We simply need a paragraph or two or three to define in philosophical terms what makes someone opposed to our system of government, and then in the next section spell out a few leaders what positions they've taken to supoort the label, Pelosi, Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and other high profile figures we can cite. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:40, 13 December 2018 (EST)
The draft below looks great -- and it accurately describes the modern Left. Is "collective responsibility" (#6) the left's counter to states' rights? --1990'sguy (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2018 (EST)
On number 6 that's right. I don't recall the exact language on Form 1040 related to the Obamacare individual mandate. I should dig it out and tweak it.
Anyway we got enough to get started. It'll change over time. We should be on the look out for buzzwords and phrases that help define an Anti-Constitutionalist.
As the 2020 election approaches, rather than a long list on the page, we can just create a Category. And the beauty of this idea is, in keeping with liberalism, they don't have to adhere to a strict set of principles, all they have to do is exhibit a few characteristics. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:16, 14 December 2018 (EST)


I googled around and found most definitions of constitutionalist are cut n pastes of each other. Some have lists of principles, but remember, anti-constitutionalists have no principles, they have characteristics. To be an anti-constitutionalist, you don't have to conform or adhere to a list of principles, you just have to resemble a few characteristics.

This came ftom the Urban Dictionary. So all we need to do is tweak the language away from it's original documents or meaning into something other, or it's opposite:

Constitutionalist 1. An individual that shares the views of the political theories of John Locke and the founders of the American republic, that government can and should be legally limited in its powers, and that its authority or legitimacy depends on its observing these limitations.

2. An individual who believes in the basic standards and ideals are to be consistent with an overriding rule of law or ethics.

The 7 principles of a Constitutionalist:

1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;

2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;

3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;

4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;

5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;

6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people;

7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

Draft 1

Here's a start. Now remember. we sort of want to use their own langusge, logic, meaning, and reasoning, so when they read it, they're looking in a mirror. Characteristic #2 needs some work. Feel free to change or suggest anything.


Persons who reject the views of the political theories of John Locke and the founding fathers of the American republic, that government can and should be limited in its powers. Anti-Constitutionalists believe in the supremacy of federal power over individual rights.

2. Persons who believe in the basic standards and ideals are to be consistent with progressive values and the rule of law.

The 7 characteristics of many anti-constitutionalists:

1. Life: For all human beings, and a right to choice.

2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions to suppress fascist ideals;

3. Family: Equal rights to marry anyone among 58 known genders;

4. Diversity: Out of one, many.

5. Constitution: Outdated and written by white male slaveghlolders;

6. Collective Responsibilty: A duty not a choice;

7. Sovereignty: The universal power, authority, and kinship of the human species.

Can you unblock me please?, I want to improve Dirty War pg

Got your message loud and clear and want to keep creating pages for Conservapedia but only under 1 account name. Thanks again.--Raymondo (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2018 (EST)

The account you used to write on my talk page is unblocked. You can use that one. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2018 (EST)

Thanks for unblocking me, greatly appreciated.--Raymondo (talk) 07:53, 25 December 2018 (EST)

Hello again, can we change the following page title Battles of Mount Kent and Top Malo House to Battle of Mount Kent and Top Malo House, remove the "s" from battles, once again thanking you very much and all the best in the new year.--Raymondo (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2018 (EST)

Hello, please request this change at User talk:DavidB4, as I currently do not have move powers. He will move the page for you. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2018 (EST)
Done as requested: Battle of Mount Kent and Top Malo House --David B (TALK) 01:14, 26 December 2018 (EST)


Hi. I noticed I can't edit anything to appeal my block here. I'm sorry if you thought my edits were trolling; they weren't. AOC does actually want a government-enforced redistribution of wealth via her universal basic income ideas and other concepts. I won't use this account to do anything other than appeal; it's not meant to be harmful. I want to contribute. Tempacctformessage (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2018 (EST)

I have unblocked your account. In the future, please do not make any edits that could be seen as trolling or parody -- your edits on AOC may have been true, but this is an encyclopedia -- all wording should be encyclopedic. If you're going to add particularly strong language like that, it should at least be cited by a good conservative news source. Otherwise, it's personal commentary, which should stay on your user page or an "essay" page. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (EST)

Internet control

I have a random question which I was wondering if you might know the answer to. When Obama was in office, he released control of the Internet to the W3C (an international organization). In the opinion of many conservatives including myself, this was a big mistake. I since heard in vague terms that Trump had somehow put a stop to the transfer and retained at least partial control. However, my research attempts have turned up little of value. Do you know if this is something Trump has done, and if so, to what extent? Thank you! --David B (TALK) 19:00, 8 January 2019 (EST)

I remember noting that there was a bit of a controversy between Ted Cruz and the Commerce Department nominee most in charge of this topic area, but the nominee agreed to "look into it" (whatever that means): 1,2,3 I looked into it further, and found these opinion articles (1,2), which indicate that nothing was done, though I also found this notice in the Federal Register where the Commerce Department asked what should be done with the transfer. The government is looking into it, but so far, I have not found anything saying that an official policy change has been enacted.
I am very interested in this, and I think whatever decision the government makes, it will be relevant to the Donald Trump achievements series -- so if you find anything else, or if the government makes a decision in the future, please let me know. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2019 (EST)
"Looking into it...." I feel so much better now. I thought I probably would have heard something if action had been taken, but figured I'd check with you. I will keep my ears, and if I hear anything, will let you know. I expect it would be relevant to the achievements pages, hopefully in a positive way. Thank you for the information! --David B (TALK) 19:33, 8 January 2019 (EST)
I suppose I must admit that one of the main arguments from the left is true...we were not evenly allocating IP addresses. However, if we invented the internet, do we really need to evenly distribute them? Using Network Address Translation, IPv4 has worked quite well. As we began running out of addresses even then, IPv6 was set up in some parts of the world, which gives us MANY more addresses to work with. Should everyone be switched over to IPv6? Yes, probably. However, just giving away all control of the internet to an organization which may as well be a U.N. of sorts can't be a good solution. I also hope the W3C doesn't start setting up new root servers in more...questionable locations. --David B (TALK) 19:39, 8 January 2019 (EST)
The Left and globalists don't want the U.S. to be dominant, independent/sovereign, or self-sufficient, so that explains why they chose to give away our control of the internet to a "fair" international organization that socialist, Islamic, anti-American, and autocratic governments can control just as much, if not more, than our country. Globalists and the Left would prefer that the U.S. just follows along with the "rules-based international order" rather than take leadership and go its own way. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2019 (EST)

Seraphim 2

What led you to believe this is a sock account? DMorris (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2019 (EST)

It was created during a vandalism spree, and once or twice, the vandal(s) created two accounts simultaneously and started vandalizing through both of them. This account was created at the same time as another account (can't remember which one) which began continuing the vandalism, appearing to follow the trend. Thus, I blocked the other account and then blocked this one before (I assumed) it started vandalizing. If it doesn't seem suspicious to you, then please unblock it. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2019 (EST)
I would try to avoid doing that in absence of evidence because there have been cases on other wikis when innocent parties have been blocked like this, but I'm not going to undo the block at this time. DMorris (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2019 (EST)

Your wiki work on Trump was alluded to in a web article

Your wiki work on Trump was alluded to in a web article. See:

It is a pretty well read website as can be seen here:

I found out about the citation using this free tool: Conservative (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2019 (EST)

Great -- it's an indirect allusion, but it works. Have you seen these mentions of my Donald Trump achievements article? One from Roger Stone and another by Bill Mitchell, who Trump has retweeted in the past. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2019 (EST)
Thanks for sharing with me those mentions of your article.Conservative (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2019 (EST)

Lou Dobbs

Hey, 1990's guy, check out Lou Dobbs' Conservapedia article: He himself claims he is an "independent populist". Lots of people who do news reporting and support Trump call themselves independent like Jedidiah Bila, Alex Jones or were Democrat, like Harlan Hill. We really ought to respect their wishes, don't you think? VargasMilan (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2019 (EST)

First off, self-descriptions are meaningless. Dobbs can call himself whatever he wants, but it's his actual positions that matter -- and those positions are, without a doubt, conservative. There are many token conservatives who align 80-100% with globalist Democrats but still call themselves "conservative" -- but we shouldn't add them to your essay because of what they call themselves.
Also, you may be confusing political party affiliation with political philosophy -- Dobbs isn't a Republican (maybe he rejoined, IDK), but he left because of the Bush Administration's liberal policies on issues such as immigration. It's his political views that matter, not his political party, and Dobbs's positions are conservative, meaning we can safely call him a conservative. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2019 (EST)
I'm a bit embarrassed that I took Lou Dobbs' self-description "independent" to mean non-conservative instead of non-Republican, so not only is what you say correct, but it turns out I've never even heard him deny he's a conservative, here or elsewhere. I don't know if you know this, but coincidentally, I added Lou Dobbs' name to the TCOT list myself in April 2017. But I removed it the same day because of the "independent" label I saw mentioned in his Conservapedia entry soon after I had added his name to the list.
I'm still concerned, though—Lou Dobbs lives in the liberal stronghold, New York City, and there are cowards that live there who can be vicious if they think they have an easy target.
Here's something else that's funny; Jedidiah Bila also called herself an independent (in November 2016) and also lives in New York City. And I delisted her for the very same reasons I used for removing Lou Dobbs' name. I just now checked to see if I could find whether she ever called herself a conservative or just an independent, and, long story short, she labelled herself as conservative in September 2017!
So, in a way, your diligence has rescued Jedidiah Bila from obscurity in the "conservative world"! But I'm still interested in what you think about Lou Dobbs. VargasMilan (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2019 (EST)
Basically, there are two types of Republicans, National Republicans involved in federal issues, and Independent Republicans - people involved in local and state issues, like school board elections and legislative races. The IRs are moreless divorced from the federal issues, usually because they just aren't interested in what the RNC is doing, occassionally over a policy dispute. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:07, 9 February 2019 (EST)
Dobbs is a TV host -- he has to live in New York City (or nearby) as a result. He has company though, with Trump, Hannity, and others. I think it's obvious Tucker Carlson is a conservative, but he lives in Washington, D.C., where only 4% of the population voted for Trump. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2019 (EST)


I get the name "Schlafly" being suspect, but Andy doesn't have a monopoly on it. I say assume good faith for now, unless a senior admin says otherwise. DMorris (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2019 (EST)

Fair enough. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2019 (EST)
Technically, the username is "ESchafly," which is slightly different anyway. In any case, for an apparently good faith editor, perhaps autoblock should be disabled if they are blocked on grounds of their username alone. Anyway, I was also harm done. --David B (TALK) 13:51, 13 February 2019 (EST)

Thank you

Thank you for tidying my attempt at an external link in the article on the British Psychological Society. It is appreciated. Carltonio (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2019 (EDT)

You're welcome. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2019 (EDT)

Christchurch: terrorism?

Hi there! Thanks for your frequent positive contributions to Conservapedia. I'm new here so still trying to learn the ropes.

I feel like the use of "Direct Action" in the leading paragraph of the New Zealand mosque shooting article, rather than "terrorism", is euphemstic and betrays the principles put forth on Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia. Would a similar change be appropriate on the September 11, 2001 attacks page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liberalnutjob (talk)

I'm not opposed to labeling it a terrorist attack -- the article uses the term several times, including through some edits I made to the article. I'm not sure the CP article you linked is particularly relevant here since the Wikipedia article does call it a terrorist attack in the intro (just as we do in the body).
I recommend you message User talk:RobSmith, who is the main author of the article and who inserted the "direct action" link in the intro. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2019 (EDT)


Hey dude! I know you from Wikipedia! I'm here for anti-vandalism work. I am an administrator from DW (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2019 (EDT)
Hello -- what is your Wikipedia account name, if you don't mind me asking? --1990'sguy (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2019 (EDT)

Please create these articles

1990'sguy, please create these article and I will tell you why later:

Also, if this article can be improved, please do it: Trump administration

I hope this helps.Conservative (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

I will try to create at least some of these when I get time. The two "life achievements" articles seem like good ideas, though the 2018 and 2019 articles would be problematic, particularly with fitting them into my article series which is not based on year. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2019 (EDT)


My prefix to liberal, describing that kind of person as a United States resident, was included because it's an exclusively U.S. term. In other countries, liberals are known by other names, such as the Labor party in the UK. My edit was not unnecessary, and I would appreciate it if you could please let it stand.

I took a similar issue with the statement that "most individuals are overweight" in every article dealing with obesity. Nationally, this is true, but, globally, it is false. There are more Asians than there are Americans in the world, and 2 billion of them are starving, outnumbering America's obese population 10 to 1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MacTavish (talk)

I oppose changing it back, and there's a big difference between the exact definition of certain terminology and health statistics.
Labour Party is a political party, and CP's "liberal" page refers to the ideology. I travel to (continental) Europe frequently, and the word "liberal" is increasingly meaning the same thing as in the U.S. while "conservative" increasingly means something similar to the U.S.
More importantly, the CP article clearly defines what a liberal is, and that's what matters. Every political term like this has multiple meanings, depending on who's doing the explaining. The best solution to the problem of the same words having many different meanings is to clearly define the word and create articles such as the classical liberalism or liberal conservatism articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2019 (EDT)


I note that you believe that "As unpopular it is to believe this in our present culture, I know that the Bible contains absolutely no errors or mistakes". Last night I was listening to an interesting talk on the radio about John 8:3-11, and this has led me to pondering this morning what the Bible has to say about stoning people to death. My question is how can anyone, in light of this, believe that the Bible is always to be taken literally? I accept that the Bible contains invaluable spiritual truths but I also consider that it is the creation of fallible human beings. I believe that such barbarous practices as stoning someone to death, for blasphemy, sexual misconduct, and breaking the Sabbath, is a reflection of the values of an early pastoral society and not God's word. To be honest with you I find any type of dogmatic belief deeply disturbing. I note that the Conservapedia article takes a moderate line on the Bible: "The Bible is the most logical, insightful and influential collection of books and letters ever written", and doesn't claim that it's the word of God.

Because of our recent "conversations" you seemed to be the most obvious person to ask this question. Timber (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

First off, the Bible contains a unified narrative free of contradictions and errors. The human writers were men of their times (Solomon's wives, Noah's drunkenness), but God is the true author of the Bible and none of his commands are wrong or "barbarous." The Mosaic Law was directly commanded by God and is not some reflection of early pastoral society values (I will also say that stoning is not merely an "early pastoral society" value--the urban Greeks did it, Acts 14:19, and modern urban Brunei and other Islamic countries are doing it).
You need to understand the Mosaic Law and its place in God's plan to redeem humanity. God revealed Himself first to the Israelites, and in preparing them for the Promised Land, he gave them the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law was good and holy (Romans 7:12) -- so good that the Israelites found they, sinful humans, couldn't even follow it correctly. Yes, some of the punishments for various sins include stoning, but remember, "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). The better question than "why did God command this" is "why didn't God command this for everybody and for every sin". Instead, by giving the law to the Israelites, God showed them they couldn't save themselves. They needed a savior--Jesus Christ. Also, see Deuteronomy 17:6 -- two or three witnesses were required to be stoned.
Jesus didn't abolish the law, he fulfilled it. I recommend reading the Book of Hebrews -- because of Christ's sacrificing Himself on the cross (great timing in asking your question), we no longer need to make animal sacrifices or follow the civic parts of the law (which include stoning)--that doesn't make the law "barbaric" though. Also, in John 8, Jesus did not condemn stoning outright. The Jews did not have witnesses nor did they have the guilty man with them either to stone, contrary to the law's requirements.[29]
I hope this helps. Ask me other questions if you'd like. I also highly recommend for other Christianity-related questions. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2019 (EDT)
Many thanks for taking the time to answer me. Sorry to be argumentative, but I'm still confused, because on one hand you seem to be suggesting that Christ would have supported stoning the adulteress to death if the man had also been arrested, and there had been two witnesses? But on the other hand you also seem to suggest that, because Christ rose from the dead, Mosaic law no longer needed be applied. and that following the Resurrection stoning someone to death was no longer lawful?
Surely Christans are right in believing that stoning a rebellious child, or someone who collects firewood on a Sunday, or because they are sexually involved with someone of the same sex is no longer the word of God? That now such practices are dated –"barbaric"? That Christ brought a new message from God, one that is entirely different from what Moses received? A message in which charity and forgiveness is far more important than punishment. That we should focus first on our own failures rather than those of others: "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her”. Timber (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2019 (EDT)
The gospel was preached to Israel in the wilderness (Hebrews 4:2). Israel was given the choice between Law and Grace. Law can only condemn, Grace saves. Israel chose Law ("Moses told us to stone such a one").
There are other such examples in the Bible where people (or man, to use the politically incorrect parlance), made choices with long-term consequences that God did not ordain, such as when Jethro (Moses' father-in-law) gave advice to organize the people into captains of tens and captains of hundreds, etc., or when God advised against Israel having a King who would "multiply horses," (i.e. build a military industrial complex) and Solomon proceeded to do exactly that. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:56, 19 April 2019 (EDT)
Thanks RobS. So how should 21st century man operate? You generalize, whereas I asked specific questions. Do fundamentalist Christians believe that Christ's Resurrection changed Mosaic law, or should we , if possible, return to it. Timber (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2019 (EDT)
If you're going to continue editing here, it's important you realise the management considers the adultress story to be a liberal insertion. Buckle in! JohnZ (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2019 (EDT)
Mosaic Law never intended to save. It is still operable for those who reject Grace. And faith in the Resurrection always provided grace - knowing that whatsoever he promised, he was able to deliver (Romans 4:21) - even before Jesus' birth, death, and resurrection. Law always only applies to the lost, and not blood washed believers in Christ.
Now, Christians are admonished to act in such a way as to be an example to non-believers (to do otherwise is not acting in love); however it is not determinative of a person's standing in Christ or eternal salvation, and to preach otherwise, that is to say salvation is determined by works, is the spirit of anti-Christ. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:02, 19 April 2019 (EDT)
I would not so much say that Israel chose the law, as it was a matter of that being all there was. The law taught a great deal about the nature of God, the depravity of men, and the seriousness of sin, among other lessons. The law was given to state how, from at least an outward sense, mankind should behave in order to keep God's perfect law. Under the law, certain sins were deserving of death--this was to show the seriousness of transgression. It is easy for us to look at some sin and say, "Well, it was only one small sin. Everyone makes mistakes, so just give him/her a break! It's not THAT serious!" However, we are judging with sentimentality from the perspective of a sinner. Only God can judge righteously from the perspective of perfection.
This rule did not really go away, either. Certainly we don't execute people for "minor" sins, but James said that "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (James 2:10). One singe sin is enough to make us less than perfect, which makes us utterly filthy and unacceptable to God, much as a single act of defiance made an old testament Jew unacceptable to the congregation. God has given us a way out through His Son, but without that, we will face a judgement worse than stoning for a single act of sin (which is itself defiance against the one truly holy God). Only because of Jesus' shed blood can we be forgiven these sins, and made as though we are perfect, by Jesus' merit. The Hebrews didn't seem to know that Jesus was coming as a sacrifice, rather than a king, but yet they sacrificed animals to gain forgiveness for their sins, looking forward to Jesus' sacrifice.
In regard to the adulteress specifically, There has been a great deal of debate by people more intelligent than I. Under mosaic law, she was guilty, but it seems that either she was forgiven under the new law and no longer deserving of death, or she should have justly been stoned, but the congregation failed to do so(or the witnesses failed to testify against her properly), due to Jesus' words. In either case, Jesus sends her away alive. --DavidB4 (TALK) 17:11, 19 April 2019 (EDT)
In response to Timber's followup question, the Mosaic Law is just, but it's impossible to follow. That's why Jesus died on the cross -- so we can actually have a path to salvation, one by God's grace through faith and not by works.
However, this doesn't mean that the message of the law is "entirely different" from Christ -- in fact, the total opposite. The law pointed people to Christ, that it's impossible to follow it and that they need Jesus. Also, through sacrifices, God provided a way for the Jews' sins to be forgiven. By dying on the cross, our past, present, and future sins are forgiven if we trust in Christ, without need for sacrifices. God will judge everyone in the end, but right now, we live in the age of grace, and the Mosaic Law has been fulfilled through Christ. Also, the Mosaic Law was never intended to be required of all people everywhere -- only the Israelites before Christ.
If I'm understanding Rob correctly, I agree that many actions by people in the Bible are not condoned by God, but the Mosaic Law isn't one of them. It came from God to set the Israelites apart from other nations (Exodus 19:5) and reveal their sinfulness to them (Galatians 3:19; Romans 3:20), among other reasons.
For the record, I believe the adultress story is a valid part of the Bible. Others here disagree. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2019 (EDT)
Moses spoke to Lord face to face as a man speaketh to his friend (Exodus 33:11) and "found grace in thy sight" (Exodus 33:13); the New Testament says "No man hath seen God at anytime" (John 1:27). Now, unless you think there are contradictions in the Bible, one has to explain Hebrews 12:14 (without holiness no one will see the Lord) and more specifically, 1 Cor. 2:13, "comparing spiritual things with spiritual".
In conclusion, (a) Moses was saved; (b) the Law of Moses could not save then, and it can not save now; (c) Christ has existed from everlasting to everlasting, before the foundations of the earth were laid; (d) ye are not under law, but under grace. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:36, 19 April 2019 (EDT)
Roman Catholic theology explains the difference between the Perfect Will of God and the Permissive Will of God (for example, God allowing David to marry Bethsheba after David committed adultery and murdered her husband). And while the Mosaic Law may be an expression of the Perfect Will of God, it nevertheless still cannot save. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:44, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

Many thanks that makes things much clearer. Timber (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2019 (EDT) I greatly appreciate that you both have offered such a thorough explanation. Timber (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2019 (EDT)


Hi 1990'sguy,

I don't think we need flashy photos of anti-Christian celebrities, which promote their lifestyles to our kids. DouglasA (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

I'll ask Andy about this. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2019 (EDT)
We could get a less "flashy" photo I suppose, but we are here to educate people of all ages. While I may not approve of her lifestyle, I don't really see an problem with including it, since this helps to educate our readers. It is not at all uncommon for use to include photos of people on pages talking about them. And actually, this "flashy" photo may be well suited, since it demonstrates that she is all about the show. --DavidB4 (TALK) 14:27, 19 April 2019 (EDT)
This is becoming a real problem for CP, since deviant sex seems to be the Democratic party's key plank in the 2020 elections. Ignoring their issues is fraught with problems. They must be tastefully addressed; and we shouldn't pass up the opportunity to straighten out readers. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:09, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

Edit war

Hi 1990'sguy, you have twice blocked me for edit warring. I don't like being quarrelsome but with due respect to your seniority I don't think you really understand what edit warring is. My reverts had an explanation and yours did not. You tended to ignore the Conservapedia Guidelines. Also you didn't issue any warning, or suggest starting a discussion. I have edited on Wikipedia for several years and have a clean record there, I'd also note, the highly undemocratic exercise of administrative power here. Timber (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

The fact is the Barack Obama article has been the way it is for years, and several editors (RobS and Pokeria, for example) support it, at least overall, and oppose your changes. Also, you admit you're not a conservative. And you think you can just come in and unilaterally make edits that others oppose? That's not how it works here. Continuing to revert will only get you indefinitely banned -- I hope you realize I'm being extremely gracious by only giving short blocks.
Also, CP makes no apology for not being "democratic." We're a conservative encyclopedia with a conservative point of view, which includes support for natural law and republicanism over mob-rule democracy that Aristotle, the Ancient Roman Republicans, and the U.S. founding fathers opposed. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
Thanks -1990'sguy. I have no quarrel with this site's extreme right wing ideology but I do quarrel with its failure at times to implement its own policy of truth and verifiablity and the way some editors use of gossip and dubious sources. Also most of the editors I have dealt with recently are very slippery politicians–that is they avoid answering any comment or question. By the way the Barack Obama article is contradictory. Timber (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2019 (EDT) Additionally most edits made by you and others do not have an explanation. Timber (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
ach ach <choke> WaPo, NYT & CNN aren't dubious sources? they don't use gossip? Liberal commie scholars and Marxist PhD's aren't dubious sources? As to edit summaries, you gotta earn your stripes. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:46, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
C'mon. Be reasonable and realistic. The NYT White House correspondent thinks Edelweiss is a Nazi anthem. Never in my life has there been such an open opportunity for citizen journalists as right now. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:49, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
@Timber: I'm not particularly interested in the Barack Obama dispute -- what I care about is avoiding edit warring and making sure we give due treatment to material which has been in the articles for a long time. Thus, the content should be discussed on the talk page. On Wikipedia, not having a consensus for changes similar to yours is good enough explanation for reverting, so CP isn't actually too much different. Regarding the behavior of other editors, you might just be experiencing their differing personalities, that's all. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
@1990'sguy, he's not learning his lesson, I've given him a long block, not just for the edit warring, but also for his pretentious attitude, especially on this edit summary: [30] Shobson20 (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
Personally, I have no objection to moving the sections on natural born citizenship to Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama where it can be debated or sources challenged. The lesson here is, work somebody else put much time into should not be overwritten just cause some liberal communist doesn't like it or it isn't sanctioned by fake news mainstream media sources. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:08, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
@RobS: It might be worth considering moving some of that content into the Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama article. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
Let Timber do it, and we can seriously vet sources and wording on the Talk page there. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:16, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

Look at this edit

Please look at this edit: 1990'sguy and Conservapedia. Conservative (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2019 (EDT)

Thanks, Conservative, I really appreciate it! --1990'sguy (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2019 (EDT)
That's great, I only wish the essays I made about Christian virtues could get this kind of notability. Shobson20 (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2019 (EDT)
I recommend linking them in the "See also" sections of relevant articles and continuing to work on them. That might make Andy or Cons more likely to promote them on the main page. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2019 (EDT)

What happened to you user page?

Your page was vaped by User:Conservative, on or about April 22. It was then recreated as a blank page, also by Cons, on April 23. Do you know anything about this? I recall that you had a lot of interesting things to say on your user page. Do you have a backup copy? Alas, I don't normally checkpoint other people's user pages, so I don't have a copy. (Though I do have a checkpoint copy of your talk page.) SamHB (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2019 (EDT)

I asked Cons to do it -- don't worry, I have all the information saved, and I could recreate it if I want. I thought I should be more "low-key" on wikis, and I did the same to my Wikipedia user page (which I also have a copy of). --1990'sguy (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2019 (EDT)


Hello. Is it possible to write about artists? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RinatMilow (talk)

You may write about what you want on the following conditions:
  1. Everything is sourced with reliable sources -- no exceptions
  2. This is a conservative encyclopedia, so nothing from a non-conservative perspective, wherever applicable
  3. Absolutely no plagiarism, including from Wikipedia
  4. Know all of CP's rules and guidelines (you can find them at the top of my talk page)
I hope this helps. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2019 (EDT)

I wrote an article,tried to do it right.


This website does not do self-promotion. You can write about artists like Picasso, Dali, Michaelangelo, etc, but I noticed that you're doing promoting yourself on this (deleted) and other websites. Not here. Karajou (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2019 (EDT)

I don't promote anything anywhere where to me what to write, it is especially my personal right. I'm not upset. I'm not upset that the article didn't fit. RinatMilow

Donald Trump's achievements keep rolling in

The New York Times FINALLY Admits: The World is Turning Nationalist Populist.[31]

The New York Times article admitted that this statement of Donald Trump was prophetic: "We gonna win so much you may even get tired of winning and you'll say please, please Mr. President, It's too much winning! We can't take it anymore!"Conservative (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2019 (EDT)

Trump has been very successful as a president so far, especially considering that Republicans opposed much of his agenda in 2017/2018 and the divided Congress now. The EU elections went well -- the League outperformed exit polls by a lot, becoming the largest party in Italy and tied as the largest in the EU Parliament, and the Brexit Party also won more seats than predictions I saw beforehand. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2019 (EDT)
The Greens continue to gain, at the expense of Social Democrats. This is reflective of a younger, climate orientated group of socialists, just as radical, more single issue oriented and naive, trying to throw off the history established Socialist parties. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:06, 27 May 2019 (EDT)

Article suggestion

Consider creating this article: Donald Trump achievements: Religious freedomConservative (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

It might be a good split-up article. All religious freedom achievements are currently at Donald Trump achievements: Religious liberty, gender issues, and other social policies. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
I might split the article into Donald Trump achievements: Religious freedom and LGBTQ and Donald Trump achievements: Healthcare, welfare, housing, and affirmative action -- I might have to rework the article titles, among other changes, before I actually implement this. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

§== Could you delete this file? ==

I uploaded this file from the mobile version of the website and the title messed up, could you remove the pic? I already uploaded the correct one. file --Capitalist.Chile (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

Done! --1990'sguy (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

Salute to America

'Salute to America' articele - this was not a copy of Wikipedia, but independent research. Your deletion is merely censorship. too bad for conservapedia. I was on a roll... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

That's a ridiculous response that will get you no respect from conservatives. I cross-checked the Wikipedia article, and you indeed copied the article (not the whole thing but only a condensed version. Your wording changes were far too minor to not consider it plagiarism. You also cited the same sources (from the MSM, by the way) for the same sentences.
If you create an original article, citing conservative media sources (you know, the kind of information that will actually get censored on Wikipedia and other leftist websites), it won't get deleted. Another admin already deleted a previous article of yours for plagiarism, and I already (and kindly) warned you. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
Okay, you're "right". but my research was original. maybe the same sources, is all. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
The second version is even worse than the first (for a different reason). It's a stub; the wording is sloppy, poor, and vague; and you didn't cite any sources. If you cannot create a quality article citing multiple conservative media sources (Breitbart, TNA, Daily Caller, Daily Wire, Free Beacon, etc.) without having to consult Wikipedia or plagiarizing, you probably shouldn't create articles.
You saw my message on your talk page, as well as the welcome template with the various links. We're giving you multiple chances to improve. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
Don't make up rules. There is nothing that requires the use of "conservative media sources" in either the commandments, the guidelines, the manual of style, or the general guidance on "high-quality" articles.
Your preferences are not policy. JohnZ (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
The 1990'sguy just deleted the article without contributing a thing. On the article talk page, I had encouraged others to collaborate. Not much collaboration here. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
JohnZ, you don't get to decide what Conservapedia policy is (especially not if you're trying to force liberal POV again as you usually do). That's for the admins to decide, not you. Northwest (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
@Let us eat lettuce: "encouraging others to collaborate" does not equal making others write 99% of an article (because it was a tiny, vague stub), or making a great effort to completely revamp the article because it was plagiarized.
@JohnZ: I never said citing from the conservative media is a website requirement, but it's necessary if you want to create a quality article from a conservative point of view. And keep in mind that I told this to an editor who copied from Wikipedia, including, but not only, the citations (many new users do this, and I gave advice on how to write a good article). --1990'sguy (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
I don't get it anyway. What's the purpose of creating a Salute to America article? Is he going to create separate articles for every Forth of July celebration since 1776? Is there not enough news happening this Summer to write about? Is there not enough Trump news to write on?
If someone wants to trash Trump, be it on Wikipedia or here, don't be so lame and obvious about it. Get creative. Use some subtlety, ambiguity, and imagination. Goosestepping to liberal fascist talking points won't get you there. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:13, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

Nitpicking I know but

Boris Johnson is not as yet The Prime Minister of the UK.--Chewy Suarez (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2019 (EDT)

I know -- his term starts tomorrow (really, in only a few hours now), but CP is a small wiki with few editors, so it's good to make all the necessary edits at once, and he'll become PM is so short a time from now that it really doesn't matter. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2019 (EDT)

Too fast on the trigger

A couple of new editors have contributed some useful, albeit problematic, content. By reverting them instantly you may be scaring them off from participating further. My suggestion: try letting things develop and/or engage with them to develop proper editing skills. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:53, 28 July 2019 (EDT)

Most wikis have adopted a Don't Bite the Newbies policy. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:59, 28 July 2019 (EDT)

That's fair. That said, I don't want being friendly to newcomers to compromise CP's quality. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
Well, we need the newcomers to help improve quality. CP has nearly 50,000 articles now, and all could use some level of maintenance or improvement. We need to be more welcoming to newcomers and recognize there are different levels of editing skills. People volunteering their time should be treated with respect, engaged, and recruited into specific tasks to help improve the project. RobSDeep Six the Deep State!
I agree, but if they create an account and immediately start changing the POV of articles, plagiarize from Wikipedia, or make other unencyclopedic edits, we need to let them know. It's a two-way street -- we need to be welcoming, but the new user needs to be willing to learn and grow (I've seen new users unwilling to do that). --1990'sguy (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
This is where the rule of thumb, Discuss first, then revert comes in. Granted, there are users who insert commie agitprop that needs to be reverted instantly without discussion. Citations formatted from Wikipedia can be useful, the content needs to be reviewed. It's not a blanket rule. It's the speed at which a newbie is engaged that is intimidating (I'd recommend perusing).
Here's were the subject matter a user is working on applies. If the user shows interest in conservative subjects, for instance, they may be only 14 years old and their understanding of conservativism is not fully developed. But they have enthusiasm for the subject. Being reverted can have a devastating effect. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:37, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
I won't argue over this any further -- it's not worth arguing over. I will try not to "bite" new users and to be more engaging with them -- that said, I hope you and Conservative don't go too far in the other direction. We can't go so far in that direction that edits that clearly violate CP guidelines and reduce its quality are tolerated purely to avoid offending someone. The user should be treated respectfully and kindly, but they should also be expected to learn from their mistakes and change their editing, if there is a problem. It's a two-way street. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2019 (EDT)

Added post

Hi 1990'sguy, just wanted to say thank you for your suggestions about my articles: I'll keep them in mind in the future.

I know many of my contributions are rather boring ones, but my hope is to not just write about what I know, but create articles superior to their WP counterparts. Whatever helps steer more viewers this direction. -Teakin88

You're welcome! I agree that your articles are better than Wikipedia's, and I think you've been a big help to CP. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2019 (EDT)

Cornell University

What portions of the article do you believe were copied? They seem completely different to me. Thanks, GChang (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2019 (EDT)

See this vs. this -- you clearly copied (as in, you knowingly took -- plagiarized -- content on WP and added it to CP). Rearranging certain paragraphs doesn't undo that fact that it's blatant plagarism. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
I have made a side by side comparison at [32]. I will hold off on editing until you identify what material constitutes impermissible copying from Wikipedia. Some of what I did was based on past editing of Conservapedia, and not from Wikipedia. By the way, footnotes and facts are not copyrighted. Most sentences as well as the overall structure of the article is completely different. Outline what you find to be copying and I will avoid those areas. Thank you. GChang (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
Stop making sandbox pages when they're unnecessary. I have the permalinks above. The first four paragraphs on your CP version plus the sixth paragraph are identical to the paragraphs in that section of the Wikipedia article. You didn't even change the wikilinks from the WP page (hence the large number of red links on the CP page), though not including those red links wouldn't change the fact it's plagiarism. Changing the paragraphs' order or combining them -- as you did -- also doesn't change the fact that it's plagiarism. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
I made the sandbox changes so that you can see all of the differences. I don't see how they would be viewed as the same. [33] Please look it over and give some feedback. Thanks, GChang (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2019 (EDT)

Minuteman has blocked me over Fredogate (Chris Cuomo) page, can someone help?

Can someone please help so I can improve the page I started? I've been blocked by Minuteman for creating the Fredogate page. No explanation was given and I find his censoring very frustrating since this incident some media personalities call Fredogate, is widely covered in youtube.--Bearbrau (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2019 (EDT)

You are unblocked. Minuteman is a bot (not a human editor), and its block was accidental. You apparently made some edit that fit within the bot's computerized criteria for making blocks. The bot's human owner unblocked you, and the fact you're writing on my talk page shows that you've already been unblocked. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2019 (EDT)


Hello, I saw your edits on Slovakia. Thank you for taking time to correct my edits but I need to say I don't think writing "Slovakia (...) formed in 1993" is accurate.

  • First, Slovakia is a name ascribed to the territory historically occupied by (mainly) Slovaks (slightly smaller than the territory of present-day Slovakia), so I think we should make that distinction somewhere in the beginning of the article. Thus, Slovakia (as a historical region) formed much earlier then 1990s.
  • Secondly, Slovak Republic was legally created on January 1, 1969 as the Slovak Socialist Republic, then part of communist "federation" (it was not true federation, of course, but it was considered a separate legal entity), then turned from being a communist to democratic state in 1990 with its name constitutionally changed to Slovak Republic on March 1, 1990. On January 1, 1993, Slovak Republic as well as Czech Republic become independent states with Czechoslovak Republic no longer in existence.--RobSteff (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
I changed it. Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
Thank you!--RobSteff (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2019 (EDT)

700,000+ page views for Donald Trump achievements

700,000+ page views for Donald Trump achievements. Congratulations! Conservative (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2019 (EDT)

Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2019 (EDT)

Great work in fixing those links!

Great work in fixing the Declaration of Independence links!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2019 (EDT)

Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2019 (EDT)

Template on Nationalism

Do you think a template on nationalism, as a counterweight to the template on globalism, would work well?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2019 (EDT)

I think it would be helpful -- it could include links to articles like Border wall, Economic nationalism, Self-governance, sovereignty, National conservatism, Euroskepticism, Patriotism, Subsidiarity, Founding Fathers, and U.S. Constitution, among others. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2019 (EDT)

The Dixiecrat, Conservative Democrat, and Reagan Democrat Pages

"Dixiecrat was the informal term for Southern Democrats who in 1948 refused to support President Harry S. Truman for reelection because he was too liberal on racial issues."

Shouldn't it say because he was too conservative on racial issues since it was the liberal Democrats who were against civil rights?

Truman desegrated the Armed Forces in 1947, so this one appears correct.

Oh. Because I thought that it was conservatives who were for desegregation and liberals who were for segregation. That's why I had a hard time understanding why it said Truman was too liberal on racial issues since the liberals were segregationists.

Believe it or not, there are liberal segregationists. It is not a demarcation line between liberal and conservative.
The phrase "because he was too liberal on racial issues" kind of got me and I thought it was insisting that liberals were for desegregation and conservatives weren't.
The 1947 desegregation order marks a turning point in the liberal movement, but many liberals and alleged "liberals" (white folks riding the Democrat, anti-Republican welfare state and gravy train) remained segregationists, or at least racists.
This point deserves expanding on cause of recent developments: Many whites who wear the "liberal" label do so for government goodies, not social equality of blacks. We see it right now in support of various democrat candidates. Biden is buoyed by the black vote right now, and Biden is not promising a basketful of government goodies. Sanders, Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Buttigieg are all promising wholesale government goodies, and getting the support of white "alleged liberals" - not blacks. Being "liberal" with other people's money, and being for civil rights and social equality, are not synonymous. Blacks know this more than anyone.
This was true during the New Deal Coalition, the Great Society, and today. Handing out food stamps to whites as well as blacks is not slave reparations, although since Great Society times whites who didn't qualify for food stamps viewed it as such. Or the creation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1964, was viewed than as a poverty program for dispossessed blacks, yet today most of the funding goes to whites. Black's view white liberals as dishonest leeches, who plunder resources supposedly earmarked for them. The only thing they have in common is opposing Republicans who want to cut and balance the budget.
Blacks today are indeed the conservative, moderate, or centrist wing of the Democrat party, while white liberals are the far left, handing the election to Trump. It will be one more grievance Blacks have against white Democrat liberals when it is all over. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:59, 22 September 2019 (EDT)

Doesn't this:

"The Dixiecrats went back to the Democrats, where they came into increasingly more conflict with the liberal sections of the party, and eventually abandoned the Democratic Party for the Republican Party after the presidency of Lyndon Johnson."

play into the liberal narrative that the racist conservatives switched parties and Dixiecrats were conservatives when in fact they were racist southern liberals?

That's a misreading, but one this one needs some touching up. As is, it's a basic restatement of the fake news media, academia, and DNC false narrative of a Southern Strategy; Dixiecrat was basically a one-hit-wonder in 1948, when Democrats were divided 3 ways, Progressives, Dixiecrats, and Regular Democrats. What page is this on?

That's on the Dixiecrat page.

I also have a hard time understanding the Time Magazine picture from 1968 on Curtis LeMay when it says "Revolt of the Right."

Curtis LeMay was George Wallace's VP pick in 1968; he was also Robert MacNamara's (JFK & LBJ's defense secretary) boss during the Korean War. His nickname was the "Mad Bomber". Both Nixon & Humphrey were running as "Peace candidates". I don't recall Le May's politics off the top of my head, though I'm fairly certain he was not a Republican. Again, that's Prof. Jensen's work, and IMO, fake news from the 1960s intended to smear conservatives as warmongers, as usual (in fact, most conservatives are peaceniks and isolationists). We're in agreement, the page needs an overhaul.

On the Reagan Democrats page, this feeds into the narrative that the racists jumped ships:

"Most were working men and women who had come to feel that the Democratic party was no longer championing them, but favored blacks instead."

i see nothing wrong with this statement; and it's corroborated by the Stan Greenberg poll cited here just prior to the 1992 election: The Clintons’ sordid race game: No one will say it, but the Clintons’ rise was premised on repudiating black voters, Corey Robin, Salon, Jan 31, 2016.

On the Conservative Democrat page, it says:

"A few former Dixiecrats, including Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, were early converts to the Republican Party, foreshadowing a long trend of conservatives leaving the Democrats and joining the Republicans that continued through the 1980s and 1990s."

Good point; looks like Prof. Jensen's work; Prof. Carol Swain of PragerU refutes the notion three switched and says only one. And Helms association as a Dixiecrat I'd have to look into. There's much of Prof. Jensen's work I've been meaning to revise, beginning with New Deal Coalition and Conservative Coalition which carries a lot of the historical revisionist basis for the alleged GOP Southern Strategy.

I thought only 3 Dixiecrats ever switched. The rest remained Democrats until they died. There was no switch and the Dixiecrats were not conservatives. They were liberals. Can you please explain why these pages insist they were conservatives who were opposed to the liberals when it's us, the conservatives who were for civil rights and the liberals who were against it or clarify the edits on the pages made by DavidB4-bot? And on Joe Biden's page, it says a coalition of liberals and George Wallace supporters and I thought they were one and the same. --Classical Liberal (talk) 10:10, 21 September 2019 (CDT)

Dixiecrats were racist Southern New Dealers; there were both conservatives and liberals among them. Most importantly, they were anti-Republican, a legacy of Reconstruction. And as Prof. Swain says, only one Senator ever switched. Strom Thurmond himself was a liberal.

I don't understand how conservatives could be among the Dixiecrats. Conservatives were against the New Deal.

To understand the meaning of Dixiecrat, one should read the articles on 1948 and 1964 Democratic conventions, and the 1964 Mississippi Freedom Party. Johnson didn't want a replay of 1948 in 1964. Hubert Humphrey cut his teeth as a civil rights leader in his 1948 speech (as David Horowitz also was inspired). By 1964, the Dixiecrat movement was dead, and only Strom Thurmond - a Southern New Deal liberal - left the party to join the GOP). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:22, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
Thanks for letting me know about this. I'll see what we can do to improve CP's coverage on this topic. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
Dixiecrat is basically one of the those journalistic terms that takes on its own life and lives on in infamy; in 1948 Truman, Henry Wallace, and Strom Thurmond all claimed the mantle of Democrat; the press assigned labels to distinguish them.
Strom Thurmond would be the first to deny he was a "Dixiecrat', given the definition journalists assigned to it. He'd argue he was Democrat, loyal to the Democrat party ideals and traditions.
Cokie Roberts, who just died and her obituary lauds her as a feminist pioneer in political journalism, reared as the daughter of a longtime Democrat Majority Leader, doesn't mention she was reared by her father Hale Boggs (signer of the Southern Manifesto) in the Dixiecrat tradition. Cokie Roberts, raised in a Dixiecrat household by parents who both served in the House (her mother succeeded her father), owed her entire success and career to the political education she received from her parents, and never rebelled against it.
Which of coarse brings us to a discussion of Louisiana Democrat politics and its godfather, Huey "Every Man a King (except blacks)" Long, his place in the history of American Socialism, and his successors in Louisiana-style politics and demagoguery, notable among several, James Carville... RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:39, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
1936 cartoon shows GOP building its platform from the conservative planks abandoned by the Democrats
And I have one more question. On the Conservative page, is this picture accurate?
I'm not exactly sure of Prof. Jensen's reasoning there; I'd say it is related to the Democrat Congress in 1931 turning down Herbert Hoover's relief efforts at the start of the Great Depression, paving the way to blaming Hoover for the Depression in the 1932 election. But some it can go back as far as the creation of the Federal Reserve Board after the 1912 elections, or even the Cross of Gold speech of William Jennings Bryan in 1896. "Sound Money" in that context refers to an anti-inflationist gold standard; I don't know when Democrats ever were "Sound Money" anti-inflationists, other than when they nixed Hoover's relief efforts or passed the Federal Reserve Act (but even there, that's debatable whether the Federal Reserve Act was inflationary or for maintaining a rigid gold standard).
On the whole, I've debated with myself for years about removing some of Prof. Jensen's work, cause I regard him as a qualified historian. Only when I'm armed with the facts do I challenge some of his biases or excesses. And he does have a habit of using what I regard as biased fake news sources going back as far as 1936. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:55, 21 September 2019 (EDT)

Thank you for the info. I'm learning a lot from on here and I'm still learning. I'm just trying to get a better understanding is all. I love your and 1990'sguy's edits. Keep up the good work guys! Classical Liberal (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2019 (CDT)

Thank you, I appreciate it! And thanks for coming to my talk page to discuss it and get a better understanding! --1990'sguy (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2019 (EDT)

Thank you

Thank you for tidying up the link to Alister Hardy on the page on the Templeton Prize. Carltonio (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2019 (EDT)

You're welcome! --1990'sguy (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2019 (EDT)

Let's start off on a clean slate as far as User: BernieandTrumpfan

I put the below post on the talk page of User: BernieandTrumpfan:

Tell you what. Let's just start off with a clean slate. I deleted my previous remarks. I don't forsee deleting any more of your content. I just thought the errors of fact in these articles were not by accident: Agnosticism, deism, and confusion and List of Social Darwinists. I will assume your edits are good faith henceforth plus 1990sguy said he would review your future edits.

I think I probably was too quick on the draw in determining some of your errant edits were made in bad faith (agnosticism has caused many people to become insane with the footnotes not supporting that, Yasser Arafat is a social Darwinist, etc.). My apologies if I made a mistake.

I will not restore those articles two articles above because they had some quality issues, but I did restore the mainspace articles/essays I could find. I turned Atheism and chaos into an essay.Wikignome72 (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2019 (EDT)

I restored all but 2 of BernieandTrump fan articles/essays.Wikignome72 (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

Ted Cruz edit

Calm down, please. At that time, I used the 'Stop Left Wing Newspeak' extension. It automatically changes some words. I reverted it immediately, and changed the preferences of the extension. Please do not lose your temper over a minor mistake. I am only trying to improve Conservapedia, and your unpleasant reaction has put me off a little. -- Toby Chester (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Something you might be able to use

Wage growth among low income workers has been double that of high income workers under President Trump.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

You might be able o use this somewhere. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:51, 5 October 2019 (EDT)

Will do! --1990'sguy (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2019 (EDT)

Why right-wing populism will triumph

I thought you might find these articles interesting.Wikignome72 (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
It seems like the media elites are starting to come out of their denialism and are beginning to recognize that right-wing populism is not a temporary blip on the radar.Wikignome72 (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

Fred Schiele

Thank you for correcting my mistakes in Fred Schiele article. Didn't notice the Louisiana people category. --Orb (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

You're welcome. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Thank you for the categorisations

Thank you for adding the categorisations to the article I started on Erich von Daniken. I wonder whether this article could also be added to the category "Pseudoscience"? After all, in the article Pseudoscience, the ancient astronaut theory is listed as a pseudo-science! Carltonio (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Sure, that might be appropriate. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2019 (EST)


Congratulations, your account has been promoted to Sysop! Please feel free to post to the Main page from time to time.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2019 (EST)

Thank you very much, Andy! --1990'sguy (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2019 (EST)
Congratualations! And with political polarization occuring, perhaps you will develop a loyal opposition that will obsess over you!
BY the way, maybe a Donald Trump 2020 article would be a good article to create.Conservative (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2019 (EST)
This is my favorite Sysop user page: I just incorporated her GIF on my user page. I am a big fan of GIFs - especially THIS ONE!Conservative (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2019 (EST)


Hi, I'm new and I'd like to ask a question or two. I want to help document knowledge without liberal or atheist interference.

First question: How can I add a page? I'd like to add a page to document liberal uncivil behavior.

There are already pages on Liberal bigotry, Liberal intolerance, and Liberalism and racism. Shobson20 (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2019 (EST)

Second, and last: How long does it take to become a Sysop, to stop far-left trolls from harming Conservapedia? I'm willing to put in a lot of effort.

Make enough substantive edits long enough and prove yourself to be a true conservative, and you will get blocking rights. Shobson20 (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2019 (EST)

Thanks.--Ay (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2019 (EST)

It took me over three years, 45,000 edits, and ~100-150 article creations to be promoted to admin. It also requires integrity (no sock accounts) and always using sources when adding info. Also, remember that this is an encyclopedia, so don't use hyperbolic or over-the-top language. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2019 (EST)

I hope you agree with this edit I made to one of your articles

I hope you agree with THIS EDIT I made to one of your articles.Conservative (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2019 (EST)

I disagree. No matter what, this is a significant action, so no matter what we do, it should either be listed as an achievement or failure. I've seen both supportive and critical articles on this from strongly conservative sources (Breitbart, The New American, etc.). Both sides (conservatives, specifically) have made convincing arguments. Thus, I prefer to give the "pro" side the benefit of the doubt to avoid inflating the "failure" section of the sub-article.
Also, I don't think the fact that the other countries won't like the policy should matter to us. Trump's foreign policy doctrine is America First, so by definition, other countries won't like some U.S. policies (NATO, Paris agreement, immigration, foreign aid, etc.). Thus, that fact alone isn't very important. Also, some sources I read noted the policy is rather modest in scope.
A good argument against the policy is that the U.S. is engaging in liberal-leaning neocon "human rights" promotion. That's a very valid argument, and some of the sources I cited noted this argument. Also, I believe homosexuality is a sinful practice that is contrary to Scripture (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10).
With good arguments for and against -- and with the policy being significant either way -- I'd prefer to keep it in the "achievements" section rather than put it in the "failure" section. I think it has to be in one or the other. Because this is a notable policy change, I strongly think we must keep it in the article no matter what.
I hope this clarifies my position on this. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2019 (EST)
Also, if you look further down, I listed the achievements of how Pompeo refused to fly the homosexual flag over U.S. embassies, and how he created a natural law commission (homosexuality is counter to natural law). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2019 (EST)
For 200+ years the USA was anti-homosexuality in its laws. I am assuming the founding fathers didn't have a right to engage in homosexuality in the Constitution. So it is essentially is a states rights issue constitutionally.
Here is what The Nation claims is true: "Take the scholarship on the colonial era, with which Eskridge begins his account. During the 1600s, the American colonies adopted sodomy (or “buggery”) laws that prohibited bestiality as well as anal sex between either a man and a woman or between two men. (New Haven Colony was rare in including sexual acts between women as part of its sodomy prohibition.) Punishment–which included death–was draconian, but the laws were very rarely enforced. Historians know of less than ten executions for sodomy throughout the seventeenth century. Of those few, almost all involved assault or sex with animals. These laws were not directed in any particular way toward homosexuality. Indeed, they couldn’t be–the idea that there was a type of person who was a homosexual didn’t even emerge until the late nineteenth century."[34]
I was told by someone fairly knowledgeable about this topic of homosexuality that the research shows the more society is against homosexuality, the less there is of it. This makes sense because even Kinsey admitted that homosexuality among Orthodox Jews is rare. And there was a culture in New Guinea where they didn't even know homosexuality existed until the Western missionaries told them about homosexuality. From Conservapedia's Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality article: "However, in another group of Dani who were genetically related, homosexuality was totally unknown. Missionaries report that when they were translating the Bible into Dani for this group, their tribal assistants, who knew their own culture intimately, were nonplused by references to homosexuality in Romans 1; they did not understand the concept."
And the fruit of a society being more tolerant of homosexuality is not good (Diseases, gender imbalances in terms of marriageable people, etc. ). And in the Western World and in Asian developed countries, the fertility rates is below replacement levels and homosexuality is certainly not helping this problem. Graying populations is going to create big problems in terms of caring for the aged, pension plans, societies being less productive, Muslim terrorism if countries open the floodgates of Muslim immigration due to labor shortages, etc.
So it is very hard to call decriminalization an achievement. About the only thing you can say is that it frees up police resources.
Personally, since the Bible says in Romans 1 that he gives men/women over to a depraved mind who fail to acknowledge Him and some engage in homosexuality, you can regard homosexuality as a quasi type of punishment. To explain what I mean, here is what a pastor said, "From the foregoing man has fallen into a debased state, and God's yearning is to teach, guide and bestow his abundant mercy so that he is reconciled back to Him, by seeing and coming into His covenant. Therefore to "give man up" is to withdraw His teaching, guidance, and mercy and allow man continue in his wickedness"[35]Conservative (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2019 (EST)
I agree with everything you said above. The problem is that every now and then, there's a Trump Administration policy announcement that's in a gray area, where it's very hard to decide whether it should be listed as an achievement or a failure because generally strong conservatives whose opinions I respect disagree with each other. Because they're significant actions, there's no way that I will just ignore the action, so I need to decide whether to list it as a success or failure. When I decide this question, I try to note that not all consistent conservatives agreed with each other.
I also liked how the information debunked leftist homosexual activists' hysterical claims about the Trump Administration's policies.
Do you think I should move the information into a "failure" section? It will stay in the article no matter what because it's a significant action, but I'm open to listing it as a failure. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2019 (EST)

As far as American conservatives coming down on both sides of the fence, I would say that American conservatism has largely been a failure on social conservatism side (abortion, education, etc.). So a conservatism that doesn't conserve isn't conservative at all. It is argued that many conservatives weren't willing to fight and sully their uniforms and flew the flag of surrender quickly in term of social conservatism. Many people are so-called conservatives because they want respectability and social approval, so they quickly cave when opposition comes. Now Phyllis Schlafly was willing to get into the political trenches and fight for what she believed, but this wasn't true of American conservatism as a whole from 1960s up until Trump. But now you can see that Trump has given many conservatives a fighting spirit. Eventually, given their higher fertility rates, conservatives will likely win the culture war in the USA. But there has been a long period of defeatism. The problem essentially is that the label of "conservative" is ill-defined so people who are not conservative can easily call themselves conservative.

I just found out that sodomy laws didn't appear to exist in European countries such as England, Germany, France until after 1500. There were obviously Christians before 1500 so to call sodomy laws conservative in terms of Western Civilization would be a stretch. My guess is that the Reformation was a big influence in terms of countries eventually passing sodomy laws. And the spread of theologically conservative Protestantism does tend to cause countries/societies to be less tolerant of homosexuality. I know the Russian Orthodox church influenced Russia to be anti-homosexuality in its laws, but I don't know what the other Eastern Orthodox countries are like.

On the whole, since the most truly conservative portion of mankind's history was the garden of Eden before the fall, I would list the decriminalization of homosexuality as a failure! There was no homosexuality before the fall! Conservative (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2019 (EST)

I do think that social conservatives did a respectable job in fighting abortion pre-Trump after Roe vs. Wade was passed, but Trump appointing another conservative to SCOTUS could put them over the finish line on the abortion issue.Conservative (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2019 (EST)
I think the biggest reason why social conservatives lost so many battles was the advent of the baby boomers. You had a lot of prosperous young people by historical standards and many of them abandoned God. And so the sexual revolution, cultural Marxism, etc. came into American society. But again, conservatives are having more babies post the advent of the pill and so eventually conservatives could win the culture war. Conservative (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2019 (EST)
I moved the information into a failure section. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2019 (EST)
Also, if you have other good sources I can cite in those entries, please let me know. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2019 (EST)

Thanks! By the way, ranking #3 for Donald Trump achievement is certainly an accomplishment. The White House website ranks #1 and #2 for that search result. And as Hillary found out, it is tough to compete with Trump so coming in 3rd place is pretty good!

Here is a suggestion. Why don't you take the failures out of the Donald Trump achievement articles. The failures are non-relevant to those articles. And given the current political polarization, I doubt someone going to a Donald Trump achievement article wants failures listed in the article. I think at most you should put in the fact that some victories were partial victories. Conservative (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2019 (EST)

I won't take the failures out, and they are relevant. One can't fully analyze and assess the Trump Administration's successes and achievements without also knowing it's failures. It gives a broader picture from a conservative perspective. People didn't think much about Reagan's illegal alien amnesty bill signing in 1986, but that failure has come back to hurt the U.S. and (partially) his legacy. We cannot whitewash that failure from his presidency, and we should not ignore any Trump Administration failure (but the vast majority of the administration's actions have been achievements, as the articles show).
I already note in most of the failure sections that many of them were not the fault of Trump himself but rather of Congress and lower-ranking administration officials who didn't fully share his agenda. I'll consider also noting that some of them were partial victories. I want my article series to be comprehensive. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2019 (EST)

My guess is that Trump's failures are often the result of Paul Ryan being an impendiment for awhile such as the late building of the expansion border wall.

In addition, the Mueller probe and the impeachment farce were kind of like the hedgerows that slowed down the Allies advancement for awhile after D-Day. Imagine what Trump would have gotten accomplished if he picked Bill Barr as his first attorney general instead of Jeffrey Sessions.Conservative (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2019 (EST)

I will see what I can do to make the "failure" section less of a distraction, but it needs to stay no matter what because it's relevant and provides context. Also, I think personnel has been Trump's biggest mistake as president -- many people in his administration opposed his conservative agenda and tried to turn him into another Bush. However, Trump has had many more successes/achievements than failures and setbacks. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2019 (EST)
Anne Coulter said Trump hiring the wrong people was one of his shortcomings. I don't know why this is happening.Conservative (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2019 (EST)

I just read this:

"There are many reasons behind the sluggish hiring.

On Capitol Hill, Republicans blame Democrats for slow-walking nominees.

"They've continuously forced procedural hurdles on nominees for no reason other than to stall confirmations, launching more filibusters against this president's cabinet than any other in history," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said last month.

To be sure, one cause of the slowdown stems from systemic problems in the Washington nomination process.

The White House is subjecting candidates to rigorous vetting -- one person familiar with the process described it as "brutal." They say the process has discouraged a number of candidates, especially those coming from the banking industry with deep financial ties.

"It was bad enough during the Obama administration, but it has gotten worse, and worse, and worse," said one banking lawyer, who noted he knew at least two people who dropped out of the process because of the tougher scrutiny."[36]

I am guessing given the heat put on Trump personnel by the media, some job candidates decline to be hired.Conservative (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2019 (EST)

Here is an satirical article which describes what I mentioned above: Conservative Slams Liberal Policies He'll Support Five Years From Now.
Many conservatives are too easily cowed by spurioous charges of being a racist, etc. etc. and cave into liberal demands. In short, many conservatives crave social approval and respect rather than being moored by biblical principles. I saw an interview of British conservatives and they said they now support views that they totally rejected several years ago and the reason was obvious. They craved the approval of men and had no firm principles.Conservative (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2019 (EST)
It seems that conservatives (overall) are less bold than leftists when it comes to pressing forward with their agenda. A leftist will come to power, make many significant changes, and then when a conservative replaces them, they only partially revert those changes. The cycle then repeats itself. I'm glad that Trump has been more aggressive in pressing with his agenda than other Republican presidents like the Bushes.
Many of the setbacks Trump has seen during his presidency are more accurately described as "setbacks" rather than "failures." They are still relevant to someone wanting to evaluate how effective his presidency was at advancing conservative principles, so I revised the articles accordingly. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2019 (EST)
Your Trump articles are very informative. If Trump wins by a very razor thin margin, I will credit you with putting him over the top!Conservative (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2019 (EST)

Check the online place where we chat

Please check the online place where we chat. I will be online there now. Conservative (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2019 (EST)

I saw. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2019 (EST)

Nice headline!

Very nice headline! Please feel free to post more headlines in the future.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2019 (EST)

Thank you, Andy! --1990'sguy (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2019 (EST)

Finding accurate sources to help explain cases of children who claim to remember past lives

Just wondering, since you seem to know how everything works in Conservapedia and can find accurate sources to back information, do you know any reliable sources that can provide a rational explanation for the multiple cases of children who claimed to remember past lives? This seems like an interesting topic for the Reincarnation page that I'm possibly adding more information to, and I'm hoping to find a scientific reason to make sense of all the obscure cases. Or are all these just individual cases of parental abuse in the seeking of publicity? Thanks! -Liberaltears

Reincarnation isn't a topic that I haven't studied very deeply, but here are some good sources from some good websites that I recommend: 1,2 I would also check --1990'sguy (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2019 (EST)
Thank you! -Liberaltears

Nice unblock! MERRY CHRISTMAS!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2019 (EST)

Thank you Andy, and Merry Christmas to you too! --1990'sguy (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2019 (EST)

I'm Only Curious

I had heard that many ancient Egyptian pharaohs were in deed overweight due to their diets and sedentary lifestyles. I was told that the same applies to most Roman emperors, medieval royalty, and historical dictators. Additionally, I also remember hearing that being overweight was long a status symbol in history. I had also heard that they had quite the meat, carbohydrate, honey, dairy, and candy based diets. Is that true? If not, what were their diets mostly high in? (King Conservative (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2020 (EST)King Conservative)

What does that have to do with government regulation of what you can eat? The government making a legal statute requiring people to eat healthy is as bad (from a liberty standpoint) as a legal statute requiring people to go to McDonald's three times a day. It's good to eat healthy, but it shouldn't be something imposed upon people by the government. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2020 (EST)

About earning user rights

How can I, as a editor, earn user rights? For instance, in the future, I'd like to have the edit and upload flags. How do you earn those two and how many edits are required in order for that to happen? --AHills6 21:43, 13 February 2020 (EST)

I'm not 1990'sguy, but I don't think we have any officially published criteria for specific promotions. Generally, these privileges are granted senior editors who have contributed a significant amount. Just make good, high-quality contributions, and they will probably come eventually. Until then, you can request image uploads here: CP:IUR. We are processing them rather slowly right now, but we'll get to your requests eventually. --DavidB4 (TALK) 22:00, 13 February 2020 (EST)
Thank you for your help DavidB4. --AHills6 22:04, 13 February 2020 (EST)

2019 Chilean State of Emergency

Thanks for all the material and pictures, after taking a break I'm back and think it's time to change the title of the page to 2019-20 Violent Chilean Protests (Chile Awakes Movement) to counter the leftist lies that have branded this episode simply as Peaceful Protests and for this Conservapedia page to appear in the top 10 google results along with Wikipedia's '2019–20 Chilean protests' --Bearbrau (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2020 (EST)

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Mike Bloomberg, and Ted Turner

Do you think any of those four people have connections to organized crime syndicates? If so, why and if not, why not? (King Conservative (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2020 (EDT)King Conservative)

I'm not 1990'sguy, but I would recommend you see this page and this page for some brief information on Clinton crimes. As for Bloomberg, I don't know too much, and I haven't done research into Ted Turner. Also, as for 1990'sguy, the user's last edits were almost three months ago (see here). --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 13:37, 10 April 2020 (EDT)
Ok. Thanks. (King Conservative (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2020 (EDT)King Conservative)
You're welcome! If you ever have more questions, you can ask on my talk page if other editors aren't always frequently around on their talk pages. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 14:05, 10 April 2020 (EDT)
Reminder of Conservapdia Commandments 1, 2, and 5.
  1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia[1] or elsewhere unless it was your original work.[2]
  2. Always cite[3] and give credit to your sources,[4] even if in the public domain.[5] When making citations from books, users are encouraged to find additional online sources that provide easy verification. Please check Google Books to see if this particular source is available in online form. If you are unfamiliar on how to place footnotes in a wiki, please see: Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help
5. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Advertisements are prohibited.
I think we're just being trolled in advance of the 2020 elections to discredit CP as a biased source. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:11, 10 April 2020 (EDT)
Wait, did I do anything wrong, RobSmith? --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 16:16, 10 April 2020 (EDT)
No. Nothing wrong with being tolerant of others' views. But I have detected a pattern in recent weeks of trolling to paint CP as 'extreme' in certain viewpoints in advance of the 2020 elections. We have two examples just today of using categories, Category:Men and Category:Criminals. These categorizations of certain individuals are needlessly controversial.
See this past categorization, for example. (A} No one asserts that Michael Cohen, a lifelong Democrat, is a conservative; (B} more importantly, I have good reason to suspect the miscategorization of certain individuals as being "Pro-2nd Amendment" is to make it easy to galvanize anti-2nd Amendment activists against Michael Cohen and others by simply clicking on the category link. There's no evidence anywhere I can find Michael Cohen ever spoke about the 2nd Amendment, pro or con. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:35, 10 April 2020 (EDT)
Oh yeah, I see your point, RobSmith. Also, just wondering, why did you mention something about a DNC attempt to promote division among Republicans after I requested creating this template? And speaking of promoting division, did you find it suspicious what Geopolitician was doing a while ago, labeling Nikki Haley and Ted Cruz as RINOs? And lastly, out of topic, but generally at least how many edits does it take to be granted extra tags? --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 18:22, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

Main Page News

Hi, the news on the main page talks about Jimmy Kimmel saying that he's a bigot because of Trump, but the video shows a statement where he doesn't talk about Trump at all. Fix please. Libcons (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2020 (EDT)

Welcome back!

Welcome back 1990'sguy! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 14:20, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

hey! I'm not sure who to report this problem to but when editing on mobile the captcha question doesn't appear. the captcha text box does appear but it's impossible to see what the question is until I either use a laptop or the desktop version of chrome.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikephshdj (talk)

Great to see you around again, 1990'sguy! How have you been doing? (by the way, I believe your previous reply here disappeared following some server errors) —LiberaltearsMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Wednesday, 20:35, 22 September 2020 (EDT)

Yes, I noticed -- the previous comments were removed for whatever reason. I'm doing well. I left because of an increase in my off-wiki workload, and now, with a more stable situation, I'll be slowly working to update some important articles (sadly, not the "Donald Trump achievements" series). --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2020 (EDT)
Oh, alright. For the Donald Trump achievements series, I'll mainly focus on the foreign policy part for this year. And it's good to hear that you're doing well! (by the way, I'm replying from a sock I account I just created a few hours ago because I can't log in from my normal one) TemporarysockofLT (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2020 (EDT)
The same thing happened to me -- I would have made these edits earlier, and that's why I created another "1990'sguy" account a few hours ago. Try changing your password on the old account and pressing the checkmark to stay logged in (on the same page where you type your new password). --1990'sguy (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2020 (EDT)
The problem is that the login process won't work; normally when logging in, once I enter in my username and the correct password, the top right should show links to my user page, talk page, etc. However, when I try doing so, the "Create account  Log in" links still show up as if I'm not logged in. If I press the back button and try logging in again, an error notice pops up saying that I need to enable cookies. Apparently it seems that creating accounts work despite logins not functioning properly. TemporarysockofLT (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2020 (EDT)
That's the exact same problem I had -- instead of typing in your username and password, click on "forgot my password" button and do the process for changing it. Once you have created a new password, click the "stay logged in for 30 days" button and try to log in with the new password. Worked for me. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2020 (EDT)
Hmm, interesting. I'll see if that works, and as of typing this sentence, I need to go, and won't be using this temporary sock account again. If I can't get back to my normal account, I may create another sock account in a few days for editing (assuming I have several hours of free time). Thank you 1990'sguy for your suggestion! TemporarysockofLT (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2020 (EDT)
Success! Thank you very much 1990'sguy, your suggestion seems to work, as I registered this account with an email address; since my original Liberaltears account had been registered without one, I can't get on to that, though I can use this for the meantime. AnotherLTsockaccount (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2020 (EDT)

Conservapedia priorities

Please see Conservapedia:Project Priorities and update, protect, etc. as, of course, you see fit.--Amorrow (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2021 (EST)


We would appreciate your input at Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Proposal. Thanks. RobSFree Kyle! 19:59, 1 February 2021 (EST)

Is blocking BorisJohnson for 2 years necessary?

While this edit removed a section, I'm not as certain if this one and this one necessarily constitutes vandalism. Also, Andy set the precedent of generally not blocking for more than six months. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Saturday, 14:46, July 24, 2021 (EDT)

I adjusted the block to six months. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:47, July 24, 2021 (EDT)
Also, welcome back! It's been a number of months without you editing here. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Saturday, 14:50, July 24, 2021 (EDT)
Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 14:50, July 24, 2021 (EDT)

Quick Edit!

That was a quick edit! I couldn't believe my eyes in seeing a category there already! Thank you.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:53, July 24, 2021 (EDT)

You're welcome, Andy! --1990'sguy (talk) 22:53, July 24, 2021 (EDT)


I don't think you should have blocked ChenXiansheng for a month; not all of his edits may be helpful, but I know he's a good-faith user with some differing viewpoints. For example, this edit by him that you undid here wasn't incorrect, and it makes the article seem somewhat more balanced. However, given some of his editing habits that can certainly use improvisation, I'll leave a note on his talk page. I still think you should unblock him and also follow a general habit of guidance for users like him rather than outright blocking. Thanks! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Monday, 20:59, July 25, 2021 (EDT)

The block is a bit long for an alleged offense committed 10 days ago already. It will be the new school year before he can return. One month is excessive anyway for an editor who was not warned ahead of time. RobSFree Kyle! 21:56, July 25, 2021 (EDT)
I will reduce the block to a day. CP is a consistent-conservative website, and it's important that our content reflects that. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:05, July 25, 2021 (EDT)
Thank you. He's a youthful offender, and we'd like time to rehab him. Thanks again. RobSFree Kyle! 22:24, July 25, 2021 (EDT)

Something that might interest you

Hi 1990'sguy, I started an article on the Reece Committee, which was re-enacted (the one in the previous Congress being the Cox Committee) by the House in the 82nd Congress and investigated subversive activities in tax-exempt foundations. This FascinatingPolitics article and this one by The New American provide a good background, though more extensive research will need to be done to expand the article with much more interesting details. Since you may have some detailed knowledge of perhaps a few of the globalist/left-wing organizations which the Reece Committee investigated, perhaps you can help add on to this page if you have the time?

Thanks! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 23:53, August 7, 2021 (EDT)

Hello Liberaltears, thank you for creating this article and asking me to help work on it. I will try to expand/improve the article, but I also have little time to spare for that. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:51, August 8, 2021 (EDT)
You're welcome! And another detail I noticed related to this is that the forty-nine GOP representatives in 1953 who voted against the resolution which created the select committee (roll call vote here) included Peter Frelinghuysen, Jr., who was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Monday, 20:16, August 8, 2021 (EDT)
Great observation -- thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 21:41, August 10, 2021 (EDT)