Difference between revisions of "User talk:1990'sguy"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m (Reverted edits by RandomUser34 (talk) to last revision by Shobson20)
(22 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1,050: Line 1,050:
  
 
::::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. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 23:55, 20 May 2018 (EDT)
 
::::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. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk: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: [https://answersingenesis.org/logic/the-fallacy-of-reification/] Despite KingDamian1's claims that he is "not trolling" he has carried a rather rude and condescending tone typical of those who attack Creationism. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk: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, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 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. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 12:35, 23 May 2018 (EDT)
  
 
== Question ==
 
== Question ==
Line 1,075: Line 1,080:
 
Hillary Clinton: Deflected responsibility for Bengazi, kept emails on her own private servers illegally, and covered up her husband's illicit affairs.
 
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.
+
And I'm sure you could name more. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 09:21, 24 June 2018 (EDT)
  
 
== Conservapedia's Opinion on Joseph McCarthy ==
 
== Conservapedia's Opinion on Joseph McCarthy ==
Line 1,090: Line 1,095:
  
 
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. --[[User:MaddieJ|MaddieJ]] ([[User talk:MaddieJ|talk]]) 14:38, 20 May 2018 (EDT)
 
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. --[[User:MaddieJ|MaddieJ]] ([[User talk: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]]. :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk: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! :) --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 23:22, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

Revision as of 16:34, 9 July 2018

Useful links

Welcome!

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)

Contents

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

Mainpageleft

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)

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)

Trump

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

cebter

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

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)

Contest

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)

discuession

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

Question

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)

expand

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)

Thanks!

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)

Tip

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)

Template:Book

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

Questions

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 userconservative135@gmail.com

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

Yes, that would be great! I've been thinking for some time of setting up a CP email address account, and I'll do that within the next couple of days. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2017 (EDT)
OK. That sounds good. Conservative (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2017 (EDT)
Here it is: 1990sguysdg@gmail.com --1990'sguy (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

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

I wrote another response to your email. Please check your email box. Conservative (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
I got your latest email and responded to it. Conservative (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

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

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)

IRC

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

Thank you for your response. I have never used or really even heard of IRC prior before now (or, more accurately, before you and Andy started talking about it). What is the purpose of IRC? --1990'sguy (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
It is perhaps the oldest form of instant messaging. It is basically a chat room, where people can join and idle or actively chat. Visitors can ask members questions, and members can collaborate. There is even file sharing, if that would be useful. I'm going to be writing a how-to-use guide to explain the actual usage better.
Most people use software clients, which they install (or run portably, which a whole different story), but web clients are also available, such as this one. With the web client, you can just pick a name and connect, without installing anything. Also, since IRC has been around so long, software for it is compatible with almost anything. All desktop and most mobile operating systems support it. --David B (TALK) 15:55, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for the info! --1990'sguy (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

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

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

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

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)

Articles

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 THIS GUY!!!!!!!!

BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!!

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)

Brexit

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 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-2001_en.htm 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)

Contact

You can email me at wirepaladin36@gmail.com RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:22, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

snoopy2

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)

Homeschooling

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

Hello,

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)

FPÖ

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)

request

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 (https://youtu.be/MTJQPyTVtNA?t=10) 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

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!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ilMYc5xdQ

--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)

Question

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)

Hi

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)