User talk:Jdhunt

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! } Pilatus 03:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Just a comment on your editing of Bill Hybels - discussion is to take place on the discussion page. And Welcome to Wiki - May your contributions be long and lasting! Oyvind 08:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Rivendale AfD Comments toward ceejayoz
First I would like to thank you signing up for a Wikipedia ID. You'll find that if you are serious about being a contributor to Wikipedia having an ID will make communication and discussion much easier. With regard to the comments that you made under the IP address on the AfD pages for Articles for deletion/Rivendell Christian Fellowship and Articles for deletion/Rivendell Christian Communities toward user:ceejayoz, I really have to encourage you to read No personal attacks. Good luck and have fun on Wikipedia. Stu 13:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

STu,

Sorry, I sounded snippy responding to a similar comment you made about reading rules and no personal attacks. That particular post came accross snippy, but after reading this personal post I see that you are nice and civil. (J. D. Hunt 06:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC))


 * Thank you for that clarification. Here's my reasoning for being on point with Wikiepdia rules.  It can be really easy in an electronic forum to repsond immediatly.  Wikipedia has rules that dictate what should and should not happen in certain sections.  These rules exist not only betterment of the online community, but also for your protection.  Karma on Wikipedia can come around and bite one where it hurts - trust me, it happened to me once and I learned my lesson.  In the event that a confrontation escalates, you are more likely to earn the support of others if you follow the rules.  Do I think that one must always stay in the lines exactly as they are drawn?  Certainly not - every now and then you'll find a holier than thou wikipedian who thinks that their a Wiki-God, and its OK to tweak their nose.  but until you have expirience with the rules its best to follow them as best you can.  The best advice I can give you is know where you are on Wikipedia, know what the purpose is for the place that you are and debate the issue, not the whatever personal shortcomings that you think that the other person has.  Best of luck... Stu 13:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Almost a warning but not one
the stuff in the article is not correct please discuss things on the talk page if you are not certiant on them. -- &#9786; A dam1213&#9786; Talk+ 07:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

warning
maijor pov on jew

I warned you not to and you add the exact same thing -- &#9786; A dam1213&#9786; Talk+ 07:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

One) i didnt get your first almost warning, until after all my additions were done.

two) I thought any one could add to a wikipedia article.

three) these are facts about what the apostle paul, a jew, did believe about the criteria that made one a jew or not.      and there are jews who believe Jesus to be the messiah, jews who think him a great teacher and jews who think of as a      heritic.

(four) how is adding to an article vandelism (J. D. Hunt 07:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

One of the main differences between a jew and a christian is that chrisitians believe Jesus is the messiah. So in response you are right but they are know as chrisitians.

+ think about this Chrisianity apparently traces jesus to Moses. But says taht he was not a decendent of Moses's father, which I believe is a big flaw in it.

It is still major pov. Put it on the talk page as I think.... if you must not in the article

-- &#9786; A dam1213&#9786; Talk+ 09:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I mean david I think

can you help me
can you help me with this page. I am disagreeing with user:Fides Viva about the neutrality of Willow Creek Community Church article, and I saw that you did some work on it, I was hoping you could be another voice in this discussion. check it out on the talk page. thanks --Mshuflin 21:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

nominating "Richmond emergent church movement" for deletion
JDhunt -- is the Richmond emergent church movement for real? I can't find any references to such a movement in the websites you've included in this article. I suspect you may be pulling our leg. If not, please comment by following the deletion notice at the top of the page. Regards, technopilgrim 00:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
Please don't use tags as a starting point - you should only use NPOV tags if you have discussed the issue and failed to find a solution. It's a last resort, not a first. Guettarda 05:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Its so sickenly biased I figured I'd get no where with discussing it first. I figured it would get attention if I started a fire.


 * Your response is the model of how not to approach editing a wikipedia article. Please read the Talk pages and contribute to that discussion.  Do not start fires.  bikeable (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I normally would not want to do that, but this article is so biased and protected by the evolution-nazis what else is a man suppossed to do.

From the evolution talk page:


 * Point of view throughout article


 * one example:


 * Because animals that are (in their view) "inferior" creatures do demonstrably exist, those criticising evolution sometimes incorrectly take this as supporting their claim that evolution is false.


 * second example:

It doesn't call it the 'theory of evolution'. A former talk section said it shouldn't be called the 'theory of evolution' because its scientific fact. poppycock! it isn't scientific or fact. It is theory because it hasn't been proven.

I'm putting a POV template until this has been honestly and fully discussed. Their are real valid scientific desentions that should be listed in a con section, just as pro-evolutionists have done in the intelligent design articles. Who put the ban on evolution debate on this talk page and moved it to a talk page where it will make no difference to this article. J. D. Hunt 05:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I normally would not want to do that, but this article is so biased and protected by the evolution-nazis what else is a man suppossed to do. How about "act civilly", and don't forget the core tenent of wikipedia, assume good faith. Calling editors "evolution-nazis" is extremely inappropriate.  I replied to your points on the Talk page.  bikeable (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that explains observable facts. A theory can be modified to take account of new facts as they emerge, or can be replaced by a theory that better explains the facts. Until a better explanation of the observed facts can be produced, a theory can be regarded as close to the “truth” as science is able to go. The theory of Evolution by natural selection though the agent of genetic mutation is perhaps the most robust and longstanding of scientific theories, and is the cornerstone of modern biology and other lifesciences. --Michael Johnson 07:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. See also Evolution is Both a Fact and Theory, J.D. Hunt. -Silence 01:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Deists
Did you mention you are a deist on the evolution page? i bring this here since it off topic for the evolution talk page. I'm intrigued, i thought deists believed in a hands off God. If that was the case evolution would not seem to be a problem. What role does a deist see for a God with respect to life on earth? David D. (Talk) 23:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There may be poly-theistic deists, but to the best of mt knowledge deists are monotheistic. Besides almost all polytheists have a creation story of a god or gods who created the earth and/or cosmos. Some polys are evolutionists and some are not. But, I'm not talking about religeous views necessarily (I just mentioned the fact that I am a deist to stop these guys from pigeon-holing me because of their prejudice againt religeous(mostly Christian)folks contributing to the debate on wiki, the media, acedemia, think tanks and labs, treating them as religeous zealots. The same could be said of many of them. I am trying to bring up the valid science of those who scientifically refute evolutionist theories of the validity of evolution, as well as, that have valid scientific theories for young earth.J. D. Hunt 23:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't a full explanation of what I call deist beliefs but, it is generally true of my beliefs. deist is as close as I can come to describe it. deists
 * I'll read it. i think you are the first deist i have knowingly met (if this can be considered a meeting), so please excuse my ignorance. David D. (Talk) 00:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy
Please discuss the changes on the talk page before reverting to them. Also, please be careful of the three revert rule. JoshuaZ 03:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You do the same, when someone edits, ask before you revert.


 * Uh, no. Josh is correct.  You are the editor making a significant change, one that alters the mean substantially, thus it is incumbent upon you to explin why the edit should stayy by providing sources that meet WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply to your comment
The proposed change is being discussed right now on the article's talk page. Seraphimblade 04:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved discussion
I took a huge liberty in moving the discussion from talk:Evolution to a subpage of your userpage. I certainly hope it wasn't out of line, but I thought it might be a good place to continue without impacting other editors or violating the discussion area. CMacMillan 21:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Chief Anne Richardson.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chief Anne Richardson.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 17:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Chief_Anne_v2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chief_Anne_v2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Jdhunt, thanks for uploading Image:Chief Anne Richardson.jpg and Image:Chief Anne v2.jpg to Wikipedia! I noticed that you noted the source is "Rappahannock Tribe promotional image". Are these images from any particular online source? If so could you provide the URL to the page that includes the images? Also, what are their copyright license? Or are they unlicensed? Although it can be tedious, the questions do need to be answered or the images will unfortunately have to be deleted. But note that, even if you get this message after the images are deleted but have the necessary information, you can still contact an administrator and get the image undeleted. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me here. Regards, Iamunknown 15:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Jdhunt, regarding your edit to Flyleaf, please see: WP:DICK Use the sandbox for your ridiculous propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jparenti (talk • contribs) 08:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. HrafnTalkStalk 05:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. HrafnTalkStalk 05:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not original research. I lost my source pages when my browser crashed. But, I decide to add the content I had, then come back and add them, but you reverted my edits and kept reverting (violating the three-revert rule) my work before I got to add them. J. D. Hunt (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Find the sources FIRST, then attempt to re-add with them (but they better be of better quality than christianactionforisrael.org -- which is neither WP:RS nor even verifies that statement cited to it). I have not violated WP:3RR. HrafnTalkStalk 05:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I had the sources first, but lost them as I was about to add the sources and the text. You have reverted my changes three times. Unless I missunderstand the three-revert rule? I'll read it again. It's been a while.J. D. Hunt (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Christian Action for Israel is part of the religeous right and sites the scripture they and the other Christian Right uses to defend Israel. Its not my opinion of the Christian Right's views toward Israel; its theirs. I am not a Christian, but a Diest. One state solution, two-state solution or no state solution; its matters not to me. J. D. Hunt (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I will not violate the three-revert rule, so I will come back and add it all when I have the edit and all the sources another day. I study religion and it is fairly common knowledge that the religeous right hold these views. You can find many of the religeous rights views via the organizations and the people, like Tim Lahay, on their websites, as well as, on many wikipedia articles covering the organizations and people in the movement.J. D. Hunt (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Our minor misunderstand on Joe the Plumber talk
Hey, I just wanted to leave you a quick note letting you know that I clear our comments pertaining to our misunderstanding on the Joe the Plumber talk page to create room for discussion. --Amwestover (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration on tax issues
I have requested arbitration on tax issues here:
 * Requests for arbitration

Replaceable fair use File:Wheres_cantor.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Wheres_cantor.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Floyd C. Bayne


The article Floyd C. Bayne has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Arbor832466 (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Floyd C. Bayne. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ''Please don't remove the proposed delete tag without improving the article. An edit summary about Google results isn't enough. Also might be worth reviewing what qualifies as a good source -- Partisan blogs like RedState don't cut it.'' Arbor832466 (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Floyd C. Bayne for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Floyd C. Bayne, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Floyd C. Bayne until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gobonobo T C 02:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Floyd Bayne


A tag has been placed on Floyd Bayne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. jsfouche (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Repost of Floyd Bayne
A tag has been placed on requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template hang on underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. jsfouche (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Repost of Floyd C. Bayne
A tag has been placed on requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template hang on underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. Abductive (reasoning) 06:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Do not edit-war on Barack Obama's article to insert the term "biracial"
This is a perennial topic that has been shot down numerous times by a consensus of Wikipedia editors, via many discussions at Talk:Barack Obama. Nothing per se is stopping you from proposing the change at the talk page, but I can say that such a proposal will probably not be met with much kindness as quite frankly many people are annoyed to see it come up over and over. I will strongly advise that you stop edit-warring it into the article, though. In that direction lies trouble. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First I don't see me as the one edit warring. I made a FACTUAL change, and then I changed it back when I was given no legitimate reason for the reversion of my change. It is a sad day when a consensus of people with a preference can override fact in an encyclopedia. Its laughable that people with a preference for their version of facts get annoyed at people bringing up the truth and fact in an encyclopedia that Barack Obama is bi-racial not 100% African AMerican. He is half black- half white. That is the definition of bi-racial. No wonder Wikipedia is considered a joke and most teachers won't allow it as an online source for their students. Because most arguments are guided by the consensus of people with bias and agendas, instead of the truth. J. D. Hunt (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton and discretionary sanctions
I call your attention to the "active arbitration remedies" notice on the article's talk page. The first bullet says: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits. If in doubt, don't make the edit." Given the recent activity on the article and its talk page, I think your edit qualifies as "potentially contentious" and, if you weren't "in doubt" you should have been so. In contrast, there was a consensus for the previous language last night on the talk page. One talk post for the purpose of notifying other editors of your rationale does not constitute discussion, let alone consensus. You have not participated at all in actual discussion. Please revert your edit until consensus is reached for it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
To enforce an arbitration decision and for violation of the sanctions already in effect (specifically 1RR and making contentious edits without any consensus) on the page Hillary Clinton, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 18:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Remove Block
To Coffee and others, when I edited the article and after did the one revert, I did not know there was an arbitration decision and consensus sanctions already in effect. My only bad action was to not read the talk page first. Also, I noticed the edit page said one revert allowed. I have stayed in this allowance. Now that I know there is arbitration and a consensus I will not do any other changes. J. D. Hunt (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC) The notices, and particularly the edit notice, could not possibly be more conspicuous short of an ear-piercing air horn and flashing purple and orange neon lights when you click Edit; all you had to do was read them and respect them. In my opinion, that is not asking too much of anyone who claims sufficient competence to edit highly controversial parts of highly controversial articles. Needless to say, I hope, these are only my opinions, but AFAIK I'm within policy to voice them, and any reviewing admin is free to ignore them. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocking admin note: First revert, second revert. There's no question; they absolutely violated the 1RR restriction. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 18:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Coffee, that was not two reverts..that one you label as a "second revert" was me correcting typing candidate twice. I even said it was a correction. So no I did not violate the special one revert rule.
 * Excuse me? I'm not sure you even looked at the diffs I just linked above. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 23:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I did look at them. The first diff was my edit that had the mistake where I accidentally typed 'candidate, candidate" and I thought the second diff was where I corrected it. My mistake. I now see the first diff was my edit and the second diff was my revert. So I still did not make to revert. Only one which is within the warning. J. D. Hunt (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 35 minutes passed between my comments above and the block, during which time you could have demonstrated your good faith by self-reverting, which I requested you to do. Anyway, ignorance of a HUGE notice at the top of the talk page is hardly an excuse. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It was already changed to a compromise when I went to self-revert. Also, I was in a hurry, and on my phone so I didn't really read/see the notice. J. D. Hunt (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I just assumed it was under a three revert rule like normal, since I didn't read the header. J. D. Hunt (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Disregarding clear editnotices (like Template:Editnotices/Page/Hillary Clinton) with active arbitration remedies in effect is not an excuse. If you couldn't take the time to read an "editnotice", that is literally made to display every time you edit, that's your own fault. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 23:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * AS I have said, I saw the part about only one revert after my one and only revert, but did not see it when I made my original edit. I think it was an honest mistake.J. D. Hunt (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I want others to revue this block. It was a mistake and I didn't break the special one revert rule. I would ask for mercy. This is a first time offense of a one revert special rule, when I have only known three revert rule since I rarely edit anymore. J. D. Hunt (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring the bit about "firm consensus required for any potentially contentious edit". Do you deny that both of your edits violated that? I'm sorry if you genuinely cared about playing by the rules and genuinely didn't understand the rules, but some things have to be learned the hard way. The alternative is to implement a system to track the one free violation of active arbitration remedies for each editor; would you actually propose or support such a system?


 * Two very experienced editors, including one sysop, have today ignored the DS notice and the existing discussion, both making no-consensus edits that were not "potentially contentious" but actually in an area already under discussion. Therefore I withdraw all support for this block, and I will cite those cases in opposition to any future DS-related blocks at Hillary Clinton. No one should be expected to adhere to these restrictions when very experienced editors are doing the exact opposite with no consequences. That is, unless someone can show me the Wikipedia policy that exempts editors from active arbitration remedies after some number of years of service or some number of edits. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)