User talk:CSGinger14

Your nomination of Agritopia is on hold

Your good article nomination of the article Agritopia has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chickenpox4dinner -- Chickenpox4dinner (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of Agritopia is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Agritopia is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chickenpox4dinner -- Chickenpox4dinner (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of Agritopia has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Agritopia has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chickenpox4dinner -- Chickenpox4dinner (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Coretheapple (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello CSGinger14! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Trying to stop people from going to a malicious website, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello CSGinger14! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Making maps, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry if we got off the wrong foot, I explained my rationale and re-added the length of the storm that I was too hasty in removing. Just wanted to say that I appreciate you and the others who continue to add sourced content to current events like this one when the article is rapidly changing. I saw this and thought it was a really good explanation on editing about current events. HurricaneZeta^C 01:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @HurricaneZeta, thanks for your message. Apologies if I came off hostile at all, I tend to get a bit pressed when it seems as though information is being removed on a whim. I'm a big proponent of working with contributions by other editors as much as possible, salvaging what's valuable even if its original form isn't up to standard. I see the point you made in your revert-of-the-revert, and appreciate your taking the time to elaborate. It's always good to get a better grasp of policy. I'll look forward to working with you moving forward, and will hope to come across you in some other areas of interest I frequent. Hope you and your loved ones are staying safe if you're in the path of the storm, or generally regardless.

All the best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I also thought I came off like that. I'm not in the path of this storm but hope everyone that is is doing good. HurricaneZeta^C 14:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

January 2026

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Culpeper, Virginia, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

You were cautioned less than a year ago by User:Toddst1 about ownership of articles. Just because you worked hard on an edit and then added your text to the wrong article, doesn't mean it gets to remain in the wrong article. Please discuss the matter on the article talk page, or add your content to the correct article. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Magnolia677, I really don't appreciate this message. Frankly, I don't care how long you've been involved in this project, nor how much you feel you represent a perceived ideal of Wikipedia, you don't treat editors like children simply because they haven't done what you wanted them to, or refer them to the full slate of policies that you expect them to familiarize themselves with (without referencing any, implying that you assume they've made no effort whatsoever to do so already) because you can't be bothered to elaborate the policies that you feel have been violated. This is further shown by the fact that you took Toddst at his word without reviewing the whole of the discussion. If you disagree with that assertion, what were the main points under contention? How did he prove that I'd engaged in a violation of WP:OWN? What did my response lack, or did you simply assume he was in the right because he has tens of thousands of edits, and I only have 2.5?

This has nothing to do with my feeling angry that you've removed information that I worked hard on. It has to do with the fact that the information is relevant to the article in question, and that I disagreed with your having swept it away without making any effort (of your own right) to implement the changes that you claimed needed to be made. The fact that you did so again without even considering the point I'd made, or just going and fixing it yourself, is frankly insulting to editors who have worked hard to add that information before you ever came upon the page the contributed to in the first place, a situation where you don't seem to feel yourself responsible for taking the time to fix the issues you see as being present; ultimately you'd rather the information not be there at all than it go against your adherence to a particular set of principles that are based on stylistics, not the core principles of Verifiability, Notability, No firm rules, and Neutral Point of View. If you feel strongly that something should be done, and the task isn't overly extraneous, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to do it yourself.

You'll see a post on the talk page. Don't you dare jump straight to the accusation that I'm engaging in disruptive editing because I've gone against your judgement. It's rude and condescending, and goes against the other two pillars, WP:Civility and Free editing rights CSGinger14 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Since I was tagged on this thread and it showed up in my notifications, I thought I wouldn add my $0.00 worth:

While I think I understand @Magnolia677:'s objections to that material being included in the article (not saying I agree or disagree with them on that), I don't think the edits could be in any way considered disruptive. Whether or not I agree with them, the addition seems to have initially been made in good faith by any objective measure.

I would encourage both of you to stop edit warring over this material and pursue WP:DR on Talk:Culpeper, Virginia. Toddst1 (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Culpeper, Virginia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Toddst1 (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Toddst1 Appreciate your reaching out, but it's been resolved. The other editor has made no effort to respond, so I'm not certain how else it can be resolved other than the conclusion that was reached between myself and the third party involved if the user I was in conflict with refuses to engage. Please see the talk page you've referred to. Thanks. CSGinger14 (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I genuinely did appreciate your earlier note as well, but I don't think you actually noted what the most recent edit actually entailed. The last change that was made (on my part) was to satisfy the most recent consensus established on the talk page. Had the talk page been read prior to your imposing that warning, it would have been clear that it wasn't necessary. It's important that these things be taken into consideration before making use of scripted violation notices.

Best, CSGinger14 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Cleanup tags

Re: your edit summary that pinged me --

Orange cleanup tags are often read as meaning that there are serious quality issues; even one orange tag anywhere in an article automatically makes the page ineligible for being linked to from the main page, and the January 2026 North American winter storm article is currently nominated to be featured. Nothing wrong with adding a "please expand this section" tag if a section is unacceptably thin, but they shouldn't be added to a sufficiently large section just because it's still possible to expand it even further. In other words, they're best used for pointing out problems that need to be fixed, not for keeping a list of suggestions & ideas that could make an already good page even better.

Thank you,

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 05:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		I thank you for improving January 2026 North American winter storm! Weatherguy2026 (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Weatherguy2026 Thank you! Sorry for taking so long to respond. This is my first barn star, and I'm very grateful to have received it. Please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need! I'd love to help.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello CSGinger14! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Butchering of works cited section, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

W. W. Norton

Your note on your user page encouraged me to dive deeper into W. W. Norton and I ended up expanding William Warder Norton. Cheers to a fun user page! --Engineerchange (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Engineerchange Glad you got something out of it, and many thanks for the info contributed as a result. If you need any inspiration, or need help with a larger project, I'd be more than happy to oblige.

All the best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		This Barnstar is awarded for your kindness to new editors and your ability to work collaboratively with all walks of life MinnesotaNiceGuy (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)