User talk:SchutteGod

Welcome to my talk page. Just leave your comments with my underlings, who will with some cajoling, pass them along to me, or at least give me the gist of it. SchutteGod (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My Edit To: History of the United States Republican Party
The 2010 mid-term elections was a remarkable event in the history of the Republican party, and politics in general. To not record that is to ignore a bright spot in it's history. It was factual, and pertaining to the "history" part of the article. With the democrats control of the majority of the legislative seats in the past 100 years, it stands out with historic proportion. Perhaps keeping the number of gained seats in this election and the last time it's occurred can be a compromise. jjrj24 {talk}  —Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

Page moves
Before making significant page moves like you did with List of female state governors in the United States, it is first appropriate to gain consensus on the article's talk page instead of just going for it like you did.  Grsz  X  17:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what your prejudice against the word "female" might be - because yuo have not bothered to explain or discuss it. Please feel free to begin a discussion on the talk page of the list to see if there is support for moving the page. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

SchutteGod is disruptive and silly. The word “female” is a completely acceptable adjective. The word “woman” makes a better noun. For example: first female president, or, first woman to serve as president etc.

Please knock it off SchutteGod. Hello4321 (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Remember you're already past WP:3RR. If you still fell strongly about this you might want to consider to bring it up at the talk page, revealing sources that confirm your last edit (that I'm about to revert since it is WP:OR and seems to be based only on your personal opinion about conservatism). If you can provide WP:RSs to confirm your claim I'll gladly retract any further action regarding this matter, (reverting myself again and leaving your edit as it stands now). Besides that, I would like to point out that bringing up "notability" in different edit (in about the same time frame) makes me wonder why you blanked Collin Powell as he is pretty sure ''the most notable Republican political figure on the conservative side. As for Frum, if you would like to leave him out I don't have strong feelings about it, yet, I'm not the only editor and you have to "fight" this with whoever pops up. Also on the side: Some felt the need to include Powell's "remark/quote" about Palin which was rightfully rejected. I was part of it; Where you? I don't know and I don't feel like searching for it but assuming your point of view I guess it was in your spirit. The point? It could be a lot "worse" but it's in the spirit and guidelines of WP and will be again after my edit. Cheer up; Don't mourn.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Obama
''what the heck is an "A.B." degree?''
 * Believe it or not SchutteGod, many universities, including Princeton, give A.B. degrees. Sometimes it helps to do a tad bit of research before impulsively reverting. Check out Princeton's website. Ward3001 (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

History of Fox News
Why did you change the title of my article?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert Marcato


The article Robert Marcato has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unremarkable person known solely for a few appearances on The Osbournes.

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. magnius (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

United States Virgin Islands Republican caucuses, 2012
I've started a discussion about the changes on the talk page. I think I understand where you're coming from, and looking back, you were right that there was too much weight on certain points. I don't think all of the information warranted removal and explained why on the talk page. I'd appreciate your thoughts on it. Thanks! Ravensfire ( talk ) 16:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Ryan Pierce (The West Wing) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ryan Pierce (The West Wing) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ryan Pierce (The West Wing) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Attacking me is fun
So you removed a statistic I placed in the 2012 US Presidential Election article, you called my edit 'irrelevant' and 'original research'. It's neither. The information I provided is not original research, the 314,756,000 number I gave as an estimate for the US population does not come from me. It is sourced by a variety of Wikipedia articles, including the article on the United Stars and the article on List of Countries by Population. The source for the estimate is the official US population clock. So honestly, fuck you for lauding a false allegation against me. There's count one. Count two, you don't dictate what is relevant, period. People can decide for themselves what is relevant and what is not. You said that me quoting that number and pointing out that only 39.1% of the US populace decided the elections is incorrect because that number includes children. Well so what? Are you suggesting that over 60% of the US population is made up of persons under the age of 18? That's not true, the 60% I was pointing out, the majority that had no say in the elections are not made up mostly of children. Otherwise that would leave the adult population at about 40%, which is absurd. Grow up, your editorial style sucks. DarkApollo (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)DarkApollo

Sorry about that
Seems we gots ourselves vandals over at Comcast  Serendi pod ous  13:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates
Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( ⭐ ) 05:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to thank you for contributing to the Pete Buttigieg article page. Another user wanted to challenge and contradict his historical first. However, you were able to point that out and dispute that person's claim. Thank you once again for your contribution. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)