User talk:SuperCarnivore591

SuperCarnivore591, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

August 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=674841970 your edit] to Chicago Stock Exchange may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * chicago-stock-exchange/ "Chicago Stock Exchange"], StockMarkets.Com. Accessed August 6, 2015.

Welcome!
Hello, SuperCarnivore591, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page West Hills, Los Angeles has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

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, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jim Vejvoda


A tag has been placed on Jim Vejvoda requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic Four
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Fantastic Four (2015 film), but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of source you need to use for that kind of commentary. Wikipedia editors cannot themselves determine from their own reading of the reviews what highlights to make. We have to reference the summary-level commentary that reliable sources (in this case, the Los Angeles Times) have made. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I apologize for that... I had this article mixed up with another article that had a similar issue about the critical reception (it was less panned than this one). I should have paid more attention. Sorry about that. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's alright, I'll admit I was confused when you said it had been discussed. Thanks for the explanation, SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Rik Amrit
Thank you for your contribution to the article, however I do quite strongly disagree. I'm going to propose the article for deletion so that an open debate can be had. Many thanks Samuel Tarling (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the change. Samuel Tarling (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Style of Disambiguation Pages (Fantastic Four (disambiguation))
Thank you for your work on Fantastic Four (disambiguation). Unfortunately, disambiguation pages do not follow the same stylistic rules as normal pages.

Please see the disambiguation style guide for more information. If you have any questions not answered there,

or try the help desk. Ubcule (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Jim Vejvoda for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jim Vejvoda 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/Jim Vejvoda 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 notice from the top of the article.  Sandstein  07:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Mole Man page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=676419435 your edit] caused an unsupported parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F676419435%7CMole Man%5D%5D Ask for help])

Dutch people in France
Hi. I noticed that when you created the Dutch people in France article, some of the text appears to be from an article about the UK (because the ONS, mentioned in the infobox, is the British national statistical office). I also wonder where you got the 1,000,000 population figure from, as it's not in the OECD source. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello. I just want you to know I didn't create that article, I merely moved text from "Dutch people in the France" to "Dutch people in France" on account of the bad grammar of the title of the article. The person who really created it is . You should talk to him about it. Thanks, SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes much more sense. In future, if you want to move an article, you should use the "Move" button under the "More" menu to the right of "View history" at the top of articles. If you move articles by copy and pasting them, then the article history gets split, and work has to be done to fix this (see How to fix cut-and-paste moves). I'll request that this case be fixed. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hyperbole
Hi there, though you presumably meant well when you made this edit at Inside Out (2015 film), your assertion that the film received "universal acclaim from critics" is not constructive because it's pure hyperbole and would require that there be no negative reviews anywhere in the universe. Or, to be fair, anywhere on Earth. Just because that's the special phrasing that Metacritic uses doesn't mean we need to present that as an incontrovertible fact. We don't, for instance, describe the film as "Fresh" simply because that's Rotten Tomatoes' preferred terminology. Content should be presented using a neutral point of view, which means we should do our best to avoid these bold, promotional proclamations. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, next time I won't use "universal acclaim". SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. I would probably avoid any such summary, since they're bound to be contested. Aggregator scores are, by themselves, already summaries and needn't be summarized. Please also see MOS:FILM. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, same thing here. "Overwhelmingly" is not WP:NPOV, and is still promotional fluff. Who was overwhelmed, after all? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=679842828 your edit] to Defenestration may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In Fantastic Four (2005), Doctor Doom lunges at The Thing and smashes him through a window, going out the window with him.

Friendly tip
Thank you for your spirited discussion in the Ken McDonald AfD. This is just a friendly reminder that you should always check that you've formatted your replies with the correct number of indents to keep the comment chain intact. I know it's a clunky system, but your last comment is formatted as a reply to my comment, not Kraxler's. Thanks, Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. The reason I put my reply under yours was so that the timestamps of the comments would be in order. I put "Kraxler" at the beginning of my comment to signify it was a reply to him. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Darin LaHood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Marshall Law School. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

ARBIPA notification
Kautilya3 (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Consensus to include or remove
Hi, I noticed that you have restored some info in the Fiorina lead about her laying off 30,000 people. Why not restore the context that was stable until yesterday? There is no consensus at the article talk page to include the 30,000 figure without the context, in the lead. I don't understand why you think it's okay to have a new version of the lead without the context, and without any consensus for omitting the context.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't need to get consensus first to make a change to the lead, that's what being bold is. If you make the edit, and someone else disagrees with it, then you take it to talk, and see where consensus leads. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You've restored certain stuff, but not restored other stuff. How are you making that decision about what to restore?  Shouldn't you restore the longstanding stable version instead of a new bold version?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone can restore the longstanding stable version if there is a consensus not to include the new bold version. The info about the 30,000 jobs had been there for a while, and I felt it shouldn't be removed without consensus. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't object much to keeping the 30,000 jobs stuff in the lead, as long as we keep the rest of the longstanding context that was deleted yesterday without consensus. Do you feel that the longstanding context should not be removed without consensus?  That's how I feel.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a believer in BRD, which is sthat if someone is bold enough to remove longstanding text first without consensus, and someone then disagrees with them, they can take it to the talk page. I don't believe an editor should be prevented from removing context/content from an article just because it's been there for a long time. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with BRD, and I agree that an editor can boldly remove longstanding material. But I will revert that removal, because I disagree with it, and the discussion at the talk page shows that there is no consensus for the bold removal.  I will restore the last stable version.  Does that seem like a reasonable plan?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I cannot do it right away because I've already reverted a lot today. So, if you're willing and able and agreeable, I hope you might do it.  Otherwise, I'll do it tomorrow.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

My edit
Sorry for my revert mistake at Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fine, I originally didn't see it too before I made my edit fixing the mistake SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk page blankings
Thanks for looking out, but per WP:BLANKING, anyone can remove warnings and block messages from their talk pages. --Neil N  talk to me 22:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

1RR rule on abortion-related material
Please be aware that abortion-related material on Wikipedia is subject to a 1-revert rule, meaning that no editor should revert more than once in a 24-hour period. "Reverts" are generally defined fairly broadly; you've already actually violated this rule by reverting twice at Planned Parenthood today to restore lengthy partisan commentary. I'm assuming you were unaware, so no harm no foul, but please mind the 1RR rule going forward. MastCell Talk 21:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of the 1RR; however, the reason I restored my version was because when another editor re-did it, he re-added a typo, and he didn't give a substantive explanation on talk or on the edit summary for his reversion. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops sorry
Wrong user... my apologies. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know
Removing the other comments was unintentional on my part. That said, I was correct in redacting the libelous comment that was a violation of policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that calling Kim Davis a "bigot" is a BLP violation and you were right to remove it, just not the other one of his comments, which didn't violate policy, and which you've acknowledge was a mistake on your part. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * From your reply, it seems you might be misunderstanding the thrust of my comment: I was totally unaware I removed his further comments. Possibly an edit conflict or just a glitchy thing.  But I did not delete them knowingly.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  20:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that it was a technical mistake, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi SuperCarnivore591. I am not clear about your edit summaries on Hillary Clinton email controversy. Your first one per talk and second one valid see also seem to imply that you believe a consensus has been reached on. What do you base that on? Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Per talk" meant my rationale on the talk page for why my edit was appropriate, and "valid see also" meant that the two controversies–the Bush email one and this Clinton one–were both similar in that they involved potential misuse of emails by government officials, which is why it would be valid to link to the Bush email controversies article in the "see also" section. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * OK but do you think your reverts are helping reach a consensus? Can you think of anything to stop the edit warring? Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

it wasn't an insult
nerd isn't an insult. get a life, seriously yo user:diannaa is "nerd" an insult? i was actually paying tony the tiger a compliment until this decided to get PC police. please enforce a reasonable standard that doesn't involve PC POLICE supercarnivore591 getting all sensitive over nothing.tyvm 96.52.168.137 (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You just did violate WP:NPA, telling me to "get a life" is not only immature, but also incivil. And yes, nerd, in the context you used it was clearly meant as an insult and in bad faith, which this comment of yours on my talk page makes clear. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Spider-Man trilogy
Please see Talk:Spider-Man in film, where there is currently no consensus to split. All that re-creating this article is doing is creating a WP:CONTENTFORK. If you want to stimulate discussion, perhaps put the correct notice on the article, and start an RFC or something, but until then the article remains as it is. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Deadpool
Looks like we were both reverting that anon IP at the same time! In case a "reverted edit" notice shows up, it's only because I was formatting the citations. Good WIki'ing! --Tenebrae (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Good to know. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

RfA
I know some people think that RfA is a good place to screw around. I don't. Wikipedia needs more people being admins and we don't need people writing poetry in the oppose section. Please do not disrupt RfA to make whatever point you are trying to make.

People tend to get blocked when they are disruptive at RfA, cut it out. HighInBC 02:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Where's the disruption? I meant every word of what I said. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You posted almost the exact same oppose at two different RfAs. You are clearly trying to get attention, keep it up and you will that we tend to revert, block and ignore trolling. HighInBC 02:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong, . I'm doing this because I am needed; I have a higher calling. I am the key to the future of the universe, I am the origin of all things. Someone needs to translate the words of creation, and I fit the profile to do so. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me know how that works out for you. HighInBC 02:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm interested too.  Just look around every now and then when you're divining, something may come to bite you.—cyber power <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:Comic Sans MS"><span style="color:\#FF8C00">Merry Christmas:Unknown 03:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. <span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, sans-serif'">Esquivalience t 03:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The block is only for 12 hours, because I'm assuming whatever you're on will wear off by then. If I'm wrong, and you keep this up tomorrow, then you'll be reblocked indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Unacceptable behaviour
Although you swiftly deleted 's message to you, I'd like to echo it - speaking as someone who holds a BSc, grow up before you head to college, for your own sake -- samtar whisper 10:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Samtar, I understand your concern, but it isn't warranted. You haven't seen the big picture, the big bang, the timeless frozen ocean, but trust me, I have. If you want to unlock the mysteries of the universe, there won't always be locks lying around, sometimes, you have to kick open the door. Now if you'll excuse me, I must go and translate the words of creation. One day, you'll understand. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your first priority should be to stop being a silly adolescent. <span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, sans-serif'">Esquivalience  t 14:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and speaking as someone who will get his B.Eng. next semester, college is a rather serious thing. Sure it's full of drunk, and high partiers, but most of them too know that it's a serious education, that is etched permanently into your academic record for anyone to look at if they request it.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyber power <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:Comic Sans MS"><span style="color:\#FF8C00">Merry Christmas:Unknown 18:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/78.26. ''This is blatant trolling again:, , , ,. Having been once already blocked by for a similar occurrence, you do not get any further warnings and if you disrupt Wikipedia again with your nonsense, the next block will be indefinite. We look forward to your improved cooperation. Thank you.'' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That was all before the block (indeed, it was the cause of the block). I think we've beaten this particular horse to death now, with four separate sections here. If this was just a misread timestamp, feel free to remove the warning and this reply. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note
Do what you like with your own comments (although if people have already responded it is usually better to strike than remove) but take care not to remove other people's posts. Thank you &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have moved comments to the talk page as it was starting to disrupt the RfA &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Esquivalience (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

RfA comments
Would you just please promise me that you won't do that anymore? Serious votes or no votes, okay?Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright. But that vote on Godsy was serious 21:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, but how about future votes being a bit more helpful. I mean, it is a serious and stressful time for candidates. Plus, with the new watchlist RfA notice, a lot of newcomers are reading the votes. Your bizarre votes can really influence them, giving the message that that is what is normal and appropriate. Would you please, in future, just make the votes a little more constructive and, well, conventional? I'd be grateful. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

If you don't mind
If you don't mind, it would be seen as a good faith move if you leave a note at the ANI discussion that you're sorry for the misdirected oppose and that in future you'll take care. And if you really intend to leave the note, my earnest suggestion would be to not qualify it with buts, ifs or with justifications. Your sincere note will defuse the ANI issue (and remember, I've opposed the ANI ban proposal; so consider this my good faith attempt). Thanks. Lourdes 14:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a pretty darn good plan. I supported your ban, but opposed striking some opposes in a similar discussion back in May 2016 because "...silencing disagreeable viewpoints is a slippery slope..."

I came to your talk page to seek your understanding then switch to oppose. I'm not a fan of court rulings. I prefer talking to people and achieving a simple "Come on, please, what do you say?" --> "Yeah, sure. I understand. I won't do that in the future."

So, please, what do you say?

Best,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I will leave a note explaining further. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you and thanks to Lourdes for the good suggestion! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Scott Pruitt
Thank you for your contribution to this article, but as a fellow editor, I just want to note that inserting one's politics into edit summaries makes our editing environment a bit too hostile. If you think that the whole picture wasn't presented, that is perfectly reasonable. But slamming the politics of something (coming from either side) isn't particularly enlightening or constructive. Thank you for your consideration. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just felt that all thof facts about his climate views should be presented. Thank you. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions / American politics
Black Kite (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gorilla Grodd.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Gorilla Grodd.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gorilla Grodd.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Gorilla Grodd.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Your recent editing history at Christian right shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Please do not attempt to remove-add this content created by a banned user (User:WyGolf) without going to the talk. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bagger Dave&#39;s restaurant logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Bagger Dave&. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)