- I see that you are making many edits. When making edits, please use more encyclopedic language. It is better that we let readers find out how destructive left-wing ideology is rather than us shouting it in their faces. I changed some of your edits to make the language more encyclopedic and appropriate.
- Also, please add more sources when making edits. This is Commandment #2 of the Conservapedia:Commandments. I see that these major edits of your either cite no sources or very few sources: 
- I also noticed that some of the edits above did not have the best language in terms of being encyclopedic. I ask you to add sources to those edits. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me! --1990'sguy (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2017 (EDT)
- Welcome! If you need anything, let me know!
- You've been adding some great information--thanks! However, as 1990'sguy mentioned, you don't seem to be using citations. If your information or thought process came from any particular source, please cite it using <ref>Reference text here</ref>. If it came from a website, you can just put the link there. If it came from a print source, then please at lease include the book title, author, edition number or year, and page number. Using MLA or APA might be the best way to provide this information. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions! --David B (TALK) 12:55, 22 May 2017 (EDT)
Unexplained edits removing sourced info
Please stop removing well-sourced info and replacing it with unsourced info, and stop using either no edit summary or a very misleading one. (examples: ) CP will not tolerate that behavior. Several of your other edits are very good (examples:), but these are not. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2017 (EDT)
- Also, please read your sources before using them. Your edit to Harry Truman included a statement saying one thing, and a reference stating in the first paragraph that the claim you made was wrong, then went on to explain why. References should not be done sloppily just because the key words are in there, nor should they be an afterthought. Please actually read the sources and use their information. Thanks! --David B (TALK) 10:37, 7 September 2017 (EDT)
- Once again, please do not remove sourced information, like what you did at Ivan IV. If you see sourced information, keep it in alongside the sourced information you are adding, even if the sources disagree with each other (in history, historical records oftentimes will disagree). --1990'sguy (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2018 (EDT)
FYI, I reverted your edits where you added references to "globalresearch.ca" per RobS's comments -- I recommend you clarify the issue with him before re-adding them. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2018 (EST)
(ec) Granted, there have a few occasions (maybe two, or three at most) that globalresearch has provided information that could not be found elsewhere (one I specifically recall I used in an Essay). On balance, I've probably rejected inserting information if globalresearch was the only published source available, which personally has occurred more than 90% of the time.
Can't you find any other source for controversial claims, cause all it looks like is subversion and trolling to discredit the CP project. I'll give you time to respond, but in the end the information will likely be reverted. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:59, 12 December 2018 (EST)