User talk:Cgersten

Marshall & Founding of Israel
Nice references on Marshall and Israel founding. Especially: http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0591/9105017.htm I'm currently finishing up reading Isaacson's book "The Wise Men", which I'm sure you've already read. Thanks. Corregere (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Morison reference at Battle of Midway
Do you have a specific page number for the Morison reference you used at Battle of Midway? The article is a Featured Article, and the bar is correspondingly higher for additions to the text. Every new addition needs a reference in the same style as existing ones. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No - how about Herman Wouk's "War and Remembrance" page 324?

Comment
Hi. Regarding the Judd Gregg addition, the source seems to be the documents themselves. But a citation to a reliable source discussing the issue is needed. I've posted the content on the article talk page and would be happy to discuss it there. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. My apologies. Must be time for bed. I see you added a source. Sorry about that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. 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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 03:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you: --Cgersten (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Omaha Beach
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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -->

Omaha Beach
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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -->58.169.41.242 (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good change to my edit. Gillyweed (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - your change of mine was indeed an improvement of what I initially wrote, thanks again. Cgersten (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kennedy ...
Please see Talk:Ted Kennedy. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Bill Clinton
Editor, please do NOT make further changes on a contested issue until consensus has been reached on the talk page first. This is especially the case when dealing with biographies of living persons.--Louiedog (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan and WP:BURDEN
Hello, as a Wikipedia editor, it may help if you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Reading WP:BURDEN may help, as it states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

Information added that is unchallenged is perfectly acceptable to stay. Information added that is challenged, whether it be over verifiability, undue weight disputes, etc., needs to be either discussed or removed entirely. Therefore, according to WP:BURDEN, you must begin a talk page discussion and establish justifications as to why the information that you added is necessary for the article. I don't dispute the average level of unemployment; my disputes lie elsewhere. --Happyme22 (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN refers to the burden of providing a citation for material, not things like Undue Weight (which is another topic). Happyme22 didn't read the whole section and it's not a relevant point for his argument.Mattnad (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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. --SineBot (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

January 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Bill Clinton. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. NW ( Talk ) 00:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Bill Clinton. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. NW ( Talk ) 03:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So far, your edits have been reverted across several pages by about a half-dozen editors. A pretty clear sign that your edits are not achieving consensus of any kind. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring warning
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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --John (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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. --SineBot (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Central discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--John (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Notice of 3RR complaint
Your edits to Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration have violated WP:3RR. You've been unilaterally reverting to the version that you and you alone prefer, so I'm bringing the dispute to the attention of the admins. See Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for the report. JamesMLane t c 20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
You have been blocked from editing for to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. 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 this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * IMO I believe the blocking is unjustified as all I did was post actual and undisputed news items from the New York Times, USA Today and Clinton's Radio Addresses. At no time did I attempt to editorialize the items, and presented both sides of issues where available.


 * Two posters kept undoing my posts by demanding additional citations and information, which I would then present, and they would demand more, which I would then present.  The result, because they apparently didn't like the infomation, they undid the posts.
 * BTW - the Clinton Radio Addresses about Black Chuch burnings generated considerable news when broadcast to the nation, and the Bush ordering of bombing in Feb. 2001 did also.-


 * 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)


 * I agree I violated the revert rule and should be blocked by regulation, but if extenuating cuircumstances is a defense, then I believe I deserve a waiver.


 * 1, My posts were deleted for spurious reasons – check out the history.


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


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


 * 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)

Edit warring at Douglas MacArthur
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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

High Noon
Just to expand on the discussion about High Noon, a section on "flaws" is trivia, which is discouraged on Wikipedia. Assigning "flaws" to a movie is also original research, unless the flaw is big enough to be notable in reliable secondary sources. Merely saying someone on imdb or one of the movie mistakes sites has pointed it out doesn't necessarily make it notable. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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)

High Noon and 3RR
Just so you'll know, you're in violation of the three revert rule on High Noon. I'm not going to revert you, as I've edited that article enough. I do encourage you to self-revert (as encouraged on WP:3RR, and continue the discussion on the article's talk page. As two editors have reverted your addition, there's obviously opposition to the addition. Dayewalker (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You're being discussed by administrators
See WP:AN3. It is claimed that you engage in long-term edit warring. (I see four reverts by you since 01:17 on 7 July). You have been restoring a 'Flaws' section which you originally inserted on 12 June. This does appear to be edit warring, and you may be sanctioned by administrators if you will not deal with the situation. You may add your own response to the AN3 report if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is my understanding they I may not revert 3 or more times in a 24-hour period. tuco_bad 21:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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 edit warring. This is a common mistake, but please read that policy. Currently, the consensus at Talk:High Noon indicates that that section should not be included, putting the burden on you to establish how this point is covered and considered important by 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)


 * YES! tuco_bad 23:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * All right, I closed WP:AN3 - good luck. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Hedy Lamarr - ca. 1930.jpg
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 GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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 criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 16:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Hedy Lamarr - ca. 1930.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Hedy Lamarr - ca. 1930.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding 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–Hun<b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 16:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Richard Holbrooke, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''Unilaterally edit-warring will get you blocked. Please discuss this on the article's talk page before attempting to add it again.'' Loonymonkey (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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)

Carousel quote
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Signature
In our discussion at Talk:Anthony Weiner I mentioned a signature problem. There are five messages from SineBot on your talk page, and at Talk:Anthony Weiner you can see four cases where SineBot has added "Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten". You are probably typing "--tuco_bad " then five tildes. However, a signature is required (see WP:SIG) to have a link to the user concerned. You achieve a proper signature by appending four tildes. It is possible to customize a signature (see WP:SIG) but you are supposed to use a name that clearly identifies you. There is no point having user name Cgersten and signing tuco_bad (and doing so is unhelpful for other editors). Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Just curious. Is tuco_bad another username for you? Have you edited with a similar name? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 12:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


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


 * 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)? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 16:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

May 2011
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  &#x007C;   Talk  12:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

September 2012
Hello, I'm 72Dino. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Paul Ryan, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 72Dino (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

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 <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  03:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  16:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Insider trading article
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 where you may want to discuss your edit. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of stalking
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 <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  19:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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)


 * 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)

My ANI report of your concern on wikistalking
Hello. There is currently a discussion at 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 <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  00:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

RS
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)

Still not using a proper signature.
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 WP:SIGLINK: "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive." So it would be really great if you could just sign your posts in the normal manner. This has been mentioned to you many times over the course of the last several years. If there is some aspect of it you still do not understand please indicate what the problem is so it can be clarified for you. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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)

How to fix your signature
It's simple. --Cgersten Let me know if you need any help. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Click on 'my preferences' at the top of the page.
 * Scroll down to where it says Signature.
 * In the box, paste in the following code:
 * Scroll down to the bottom and hit 'Save'
 * When you sign, type 4 tildes. ~
 * It will look as it does now, except your name will have a link to your talk page. The redlink to your user page will be gone, and you'll stop getting annoying messages from Sinebot.

November 2012
Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Andrea Mitchell, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sum mer PhD (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Re Aretha Franklin
I have reverted the edit you made to the Aretha Franklin article, stating that she died yesturday. You cited no source, and I can find nothing via Google to confirm it. As you should be aware, per WP:BLP policy, such material needs firm citations - can you provide a link to the source of this information? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

9/11 Commission
Hi Cgersten, just wanted to remind you of the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison Talk 12:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Jack Kemp
I am unable to WP:V the paragraph that you added to Jack Kemp and have removed it. Please find something with a link.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:41, 7 April 2014 (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) 14:01, 24 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) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured article review for Omaha Beach
I have nominated Omaha Beach for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 20:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
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)


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