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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)