User talk:CarterSchmelz61

Welcome!

Hello, CarterSchmelz61, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Hello, I'm Loafiewa. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Glock have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Loafiewa (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Aoi. I noticed that you recently removed content from Lauren Boebert without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly use edit summaries

As the comment above requests, kindly use the box below the editing window to type in an edit summary briefly describing what changes you’ve made when you edit an article. Your contribution history shows that you have not left a single such summary for anything you’ve revised. It makes it a hassle for other people interested in an article's topic to know what you’ve done without going in and scrutinizing your work change by change, and it probably increases the odds that your changes will simply be removed if it becomes too difficult for others to figure out what you’re doing. 1995hoo (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

A pattern is emerging of disruptive editing which I have seen in the Washington Commanders and Native American Guardians Association: removing sourced content from articles and adding unsourced comments, all without talk page explanations or edit summaries. Such behavior will likely lead to being blocked from future editing. WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The pages are filled with language that is biased from who originally wrote the pages. All I am doing is removing the bias. CarterSchmelz61 (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may believe it is biased, but if you want to add new content, you must provide adequate citations to reliable sources to support what you add. Otherwise, your material will likely be removed and you are likely to be blocked from future editing. 1995hoo (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you are calling opinion, in the case of the Commanders article, is the result of an academic study published in a peer-reviewed article. Such studies are the opposite of bias. WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Hello, I'm Belbury. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Faith healing have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Belbury (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CarterSchmelz61! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mdaniels5757. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to The Satanic Temple—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to The Satanic Temple. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Please also refrain from marking these edits as minor. This appears to be a continued issue. Ertal72 (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Hi CarterSchmelz61! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Peanuts that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CarterSchmelz61! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Faith healing several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Faith healing, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3PO

You requested a 3PO and there's no active discussion. Fell free to start one if you like, but I've removed your request since there's nothing to add. Nemov (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to complementary and alternative medicine, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hello, I'm Aloha27. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Justin Trudeau, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Aloha27 talk 11:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Eskimo, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

The *Show preview* button is right next to the *Publish changes* button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 05:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Native American name controversy. And changing sourced text Doug Weller talk 09:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next time expect an indefinite block. You've some good edits but too many unacceptable blocks. Doug Weller talk 09:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also note you still are not using edit summaries.. Doug Weller talk 09:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]