User talk:1990'sguy

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PeterIceHockey (Talk | contribs) at 17:11, 5 December 2016. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
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)

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)

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)