User talk:Sheepythemouse

April 2016
Hello, I'm A guy saved by Jesus. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Antonin Scalia, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Done, but as source was readily available in article titled Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination and I was in a hurry, I assumed it would be sourced later, esp. as traffic to this article is high. Thanks for noticing it though! Sheepythemouse (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The article that you linked to has "nomination" in the title because Garland has only been nominated by President Obama to succeed Scalia with the Supreme Court vacancy. Garland hasn't been voted on and confirmed by the Senate yet, so it is not a certainty that he will succeed Scalia. Therefore, he should not be listed as Scalia's successor in the infobox yet. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Correction: I was mistaken about the reason why "nomination" is in the article's title. Apparently it stays in the title of those articles even after a Justice is actually confirmed. However, I was correct that Garland has not been confirmed yet. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps adding "nominated" in parentheses after Garland's name in Scalia's article would work? Sheepythemouse (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC) After you respond, I will revert to the previous version and add in the parentheses, should that be the way we choose to procede. Sheepythemouse (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for revisiting Articles for deletion/How Funny
Just a note: if reconsidering a delete !vote, always best to place your comment after the original statement and then do a strikethrough of the old using   to strike the comment  . Thanks,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that! Sheepythemouse (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/London Buses route 53
Hi, you previously contributed to a deletion discussion for London bus route 390, another similar deletion discussion is ongoing at Articles for deletion/London Buses route 53 which you may wish to give your input on.

Note: I've placed (or am in the process of placing) this notification on the talk page of anyone who took part in the original deletion discussion, as the most recent similar discussion, regardless of deletion preference, which is allowable under WP:CANVASS. The only exception being if that person has already contributed, or has indicated on their profile that they are inactive.

Thanks for your time. Jeni ( talk ) 10:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)