Hello, CarterSchmelz61, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Loafiewa. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Glock have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Loafiewa (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Aoi. I noticed that you recently removed content from Lauren Boebert 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 your 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. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the comment above requests, kindly use the box below the editing window to type in an edit summary briefly describing what changes you’ve made when you edit an article. Your contribution history shows that you have not left a single such summary for anything you’ve revised. It makes it a hassle for other people interested in an article's topic to know what you’ve done without going in and scrutinizing your work change by change, and it probably increases the odds that your changes will simply be removed if it becomes too difficult for others to figure out what you’re doing. 1995hoo (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A pattern is emerging of disruptive editing which I have seen in the Washington Commanders and Native American Guardians Association: removing sourced content from articles and adding unsourced comments, all without talk page explanations or edit summaries. Such behavior will likely lead to being blocked from future editing. WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The pages are filled with language that is biased from who originally wrote the pages. All I am doing is removing the bias. CarterSchmelz61 (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may believe it is biased, but if you want to add new content, you must provide adequate citations to reliable sources to support what you add. Otherwise, your material will likely be removed and you are likely to be blocked from future editing. 1995hoo (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you are calling opinion, in the case of the Commanders article, is the result of an academic study published in a peer-reviewed article. Such studies are the opposite of bias. WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Belbury. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Faith healing have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Belbury (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CarterSchmelz61! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mdaniels5757. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to The Satanic Temple—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to The Satanic Temple. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Please also refrain from marking these edits as minor. This appears to be a continued issue. Ertal72 (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CarterSchmelz61! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Peanuts that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CarterSchmelz61! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Faith healing several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Faith healing, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You requested a 3PO and there's no active discussion. Fell free to start one if you like, but I've removed your request since there's nothing to add. Nemov (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to complementary and alternative medicine, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Aloha27. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Justin Trudeau, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.   Aloha27  talk  11:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Eskimo, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 05:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Native American name controversy. And changing sourced text Doug Weller talk 09:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next time expect an indefinite block. You've some good edits but too many unacceptable blocks. Doug Weller talk 09:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also note you still are not using edit summaries.. Doug Weller talk 09:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Religious perspectives on Jesus. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 04:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Remsense ‥ 论 01:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Remsense ‥ 论 01:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited J. K. Simmons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whiplash. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 19:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Jonah. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article had both, so I simplified it. Also, Jonah is a prophet in Christianity, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to use BCE. Thank you. CarterSchmelz61 (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CarterSchmelz61 You could just as well say Jonah didn't live during the Christian era,. so BC makes no sense. But that is NOT the way we work. See WP:ERA if you haven't already read it. Doug Weller talk 17:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CarterSchmelz61 You could just as well say Jonah didn't live during the Christian era,. so BC makes no sense. But that is NOT the way we work. See WP:ERA if you haven't already read it, although if you have and are still ignoring it, that's not good. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for the redundancy., Doug Weller talk (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I have read it, and I have not ignored it. CarterSchmelz61 (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since you took the responsibility to edit the sentence, could you also edit it in the "Immigration and multiculturalism" section (for consistency)? Thank you. [1]. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just changed it! CarterSchmelz61 (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WBBM-TV. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a discussion about all the changes you are making to state flag short descriptions? If not, can you roll those back? You're also marking each of these edits as minor. I rolled back the edits for South Carolina, Florida, and Alabama. Nemov (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made all of the descriptions for the states and territories standard and uniform. There were like 10 different wordings and I made all of them the same one. CarterSchmelz61 (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change the ones I updated again without finding consensus to do so. A flag for Alabama should not have the same description as a completely different flag from a completely different state. The flags aren't uniform, why would they have a uniformed description? Nemov (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are all U.S. state flags. CarterSchmelz61 (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are U.S. state flags for a specific state. Also, these aren't minor edits so quit marking them as such. This isn't the first time you've been asked. Nemov (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the state flag pages already have the same caption. I am just making all of them the same. Please refrain from starting an edit war. Thank you. CarterSchmelz61 (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are making the change that I have discussed here and on the article itself. You putting the change back in despite my objection means you're engaged in an edit war. If you do not wish to discuss this or find consensus I'll escalate this further. I suggest you roll the edit at South Carolina back. Nemov (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you've been adding the country to short descriptions about NYC topics. This is unnecessary per WP:SDAVOID, as the short description should prioritize the most relevant information, and most people will have at least a general idea of where NYC is. Additionally, adding the country to the short description adds between 15 and 24 characters, in many cases lengthening the short description significantly beyond 40 characters. Per WP:SD40, short descriptions beyond 40 characters are likely to be truncated anyway, so the addition of the country can cause the short description to be cut off in places like the search box. Epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CarterSchmelz61! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Flag of South Carolina several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Flag of South Carolina, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Nemov (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:CarterSchmelz61 reported by User:Nemov (Result: ). Thank you. Nemov (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CarterSchmelz61 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I wanted to standardise all of the article descriptions for the pages of the U.S. state flags with the simple "U.S. state flag". Instead, I became the target of an edit war with a moderator. Most of the pages already have this exact description, and I am confused as to why the rest cannot have it. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Doesn't really matter; you edit warred to make your change stick rather than using the article talk page to discuss your change. The other editor is not a "moderator", by the way. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

CarterSchmelz61 (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CarterSchmelz61! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Nick Fuentes and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for failing to engage with editors' concerns at ANI.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you from mainspace pending your satisfactory participation at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CarterSchmelz61_-_religious_POV_pushing. Responding to fellow editors' concerns is not optional. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CarterSchmelz61 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I apologise for the edits in question that I made. I will be more considerate and less biased going forward. Thank you.

Decline reason:

This is nowhere near sufficient. However, you have a path forward. Spend time making WP:EDITREQ on article talk pages. Once you have several hundred of these across at least six months, feel free to contest your block. Your edits will be reviewed to see if the problem is resolved. Had you addressed the concerns when asked, there might have been no need for the block. Yamla (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]