User talk:Cgersten

I don't believe individuals should censor history.--cgersten --tuco_bad 17:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Gersten, your history shows four edits marked 'Undo' on March 10, i.e. you made four reverts that day. Four reverts in a 24-hour period can lead to a block, per

WP:3RR. Do you believe that the 3RR rule should only apply to other people? EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

2. Defense of entrapment -Jojhutton wrote: I have been slowly trying to remove this information for over a month now. Mostly on my own, and always careful to never make more than 3 reverts on a page a day. I knew that it was a matter of time before this user went over 3 reverts.--cgersten--tuco_bad 18:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)--cgersten--tuco_bad 18:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you consider the possibility that the others may know Wikipedia policy better than you? In an extremely general article that covers a wide span of time, not every single thing that was ever said in the New York Times may be worth including. Check out the

policy on undue weight. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The article about Bush ordering the raid on Iraq beyond the "no fly" zone in Iraq (first time in over 2 years, and seen as an escalation) occured on only one day, February 16, 2001, not a "wide span of time", and was ordered by Bush while in office less than 30 days. cgersten--tuco_bad 18:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to you to make a unilateral decision on which quotes from the New York Times belong in the article. You are expected to defer to the consensus of all the editors. If you can't persuade them of the value of the quote, it should be left out. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is fair and logical, deferring to a consensus of all the editors - but how does, and when do the consensus of the editors vote?cgersten--tuco_bad 19:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you observe that your change to the article is reverted by more than one person, that should be an indication that at least two people disagree with you. You are expected to use the Talk page to see if you can persuade them, and not simply continue to revert your own version back into the article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - then two or more people reverting is the standard for persuading on Talk page. cgersten--tuco_bad 20:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are editing very-high-profile political articles, such as Presidency of Bill Clinton, it is wise to ask on the Talk page before making any change that could be controversial. EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand why one should be reticent about posting an unquestioned fact on any article. In fact just the reverse, it should be wise to ask on the Talk page before removing an uncontested fact. cgersten tuco_bad 02:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have added the same bit to the MacArthur article four times in two days:

• Revision as of 14:33, March 22, 2010
• Revision as of 12:34, March 23, 2010
• Revision as of 14:26, March 23, 2010
• Revision as of 12:03, March 24, 2010

Other editors have removed this each time. Take your concerns to the talk page—do not continue edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand on the discussion about

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 03:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

Three reverts of any kind per article per 24 hour period is a bright line, not an entitlement. Continually reverting an article to your preferred version over the articulated objections of your fellow volunteers may still be

reliable sources. Would you be willing to refrain from editing High Noon for one week, focusing on the talkpage instead? - 2/0 (cont.) 22:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

All right, I closed

WP:AN3#User:Cgersten reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: warned) - good luck. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for uploading File:Hedy Lamarr - ca. 1930.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on

A tag has been placed on

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 23:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

Do you have an online source for that? I'd love to keep it, but as my source doesn't have the full review, it's a little problematical.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't - but it is in the source I referenced.--tuco_bad 19:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've confirmed the page number. Thanks for your help. I've ordered the book too, looks useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have the book, refer to it constantly - GREAT book! Regards--tuco_bad 20:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt if mine will come for a few days as I did not pay for expedited shipping ... feel free to look in at Carousel anytime. I think the article is shaping well.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt - You're doing a great job - you sure are an asset to Wikipedia and history in general. Regards--tuco_bad 12:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't fishing for a compliment, I always try to get feedback.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In our discussion at

Johnuniq - I changed my preferences, so hopefully this problem will be corrected. Thanks for your suggestion.--Cgersten (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious. Is tuco_bad another username for you? Have you edited with a similar name?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to both questions.--Cgersten (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If on Wikipedia, why did you decide to change to this name? Which account(s) did you edit as? Would you like those accounts merged with this one (if possible)?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually just edited under cgersten with Tuco_bad displayed; changed to cgersten dispayed, because of problem with signature and timestamp.--Cgersten (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not keep inserting that stray sentence about his campaign rhetoric into a random section of Tim Pawlenty. It adds nothing to the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Paul Ryan, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. JOJ ^Hutton 03:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. JOJ ^Hutton 16:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I reverted your edit regarding Paul Ryan at the Insider trading article a couple of times. I started a discussion at Talk:Insider trading#Paul Ryan where you may want to discuss your edit. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of stalking is very serious. If you feel harrassed or threatened by me in any way, you should begin an ANI discussion immediately. Wiki stalking is very serious and should be dealt with in the appropriate manner, but continuing to add unsourced or poorly sourced trivia to multiple articles is disruptive. if you don't begin an ANI report by the end of the day, I'll report myself. JOJ ^Hutton 19:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. 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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

Please start signing your posts in the normal fashion. Writing down some name with no apparent connection to your account is not considered signing your posts. See

Wp:SIG for more information. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I made the report to ANI on your behalf.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm KillerChihuahua. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Presidency of Barack Obama, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It has been removed. If you think a mistake was made or if you have any questions, you can discuss this on the article talk page, or leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear what the problem is here, or why you apparently refuse to just do it the easy way. When you add your sig by typing it out and then leaving a timestamp behind it, there is no link to your user or user talk pages. Per

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

--[[User talk:Cgersten|Cgersten]]

Hi Cgersten, just wanted to remind you of the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to

Hello, Cgersten. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cgersten. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to United Airlines Flight 175. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Cannolis (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I understand. Just wanted it recorded for what I saw. 144.121.66.230 (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]