User talk:66.90.170.161

March 2016
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Institute for Creation Research. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

March 2017
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Kirsten Gillibrand. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Please don't use Wikipedia to advocate for a certain point of view. Scjessey (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
The Institute for Creation Research ‎being pseudoscientific is well-source and has been discussed ad nauseum on talk:Institute for Creation Research.

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you recently removed content from Institute for Creation Research 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 the 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. Jim1138 (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)