User talk:1990'sguy
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)
- 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)
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)
