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

Revision as of 18:25, April 26, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References from Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

Account promoted

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reading the WSJ

Re: Christoph Blocher

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

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

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

Account promoted

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

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

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

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

Move and unlock requests

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

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

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

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

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

If you think you have been judged unfairly, you could have just emailed Karajou or 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

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. RobS^{Make Exxon Great Again} 22:37, 13 January 2017 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. RobS^{Make Exxon Great Again} 12:42, 28 January 2017 (EST)

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

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: . 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

• Would human life be sacred in an atheist world?

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

• Does Atheism (Determinism) Negatively Impact Morality?

• Atheism, Ethics, and Immorality

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

• Questions on Atheism, Ethics, and Marital Conflict

• Atheism and ethics

Secular sources:

• Secular Morality

• The Moral Evaluation of Religion

Additional sources:

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

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:

• Secular ethics

• Secular Morality

• The Moral Evaluation of Religion

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

A couple more article suggestions related to atheism and morality

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

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

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

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

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

The Project I invited you to participate in plus

Here is the project I invited you to participate in:

• Conservapedia:Atheism Project

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

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

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

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. RobS^{CIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2} 15:31, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

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

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)