User talk:Mary Samsonite

Larry Elder

Your recent editing history 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important notes

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Neutrality^talk 01:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this is ambiguous. With the freedom I have to speculate, I am going to presume that I'm an invaluable asset here. Cool. Mary Samsonite (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary, I agree with your edits. If anything, you were reverting vandalism, but maybe you should have actually mentioned removing vandalism in your edit summaries. Lostfan333 (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I actually wasn't being sarcastic haha but thanks. I'm aware that I likely have partisan blind spots, and largely don't disagree with the fixes. Mary Samsonite (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to pay much closer attention to what constitutes vandalism on Wikipedia. That term has a very narrow definition that does not apply to content disputes, and as far as I can see, a content dispute is what what you are discussing. Correct me if I am wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It started falling apart when the editor I was reverting said they reported me for "vandalizing" their edit (I saw no such report), so I went with it. I don't mind a broad definition of vandalism (I am not a fan of Banksy) but I see what the Wikipedia standard is. Mary Samsonite (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

The Larry Elder photo is clearly covered under Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed). Try reading the description and doing the very basics before nominating for deletion. You seem new here, so learn the ground rules before doing such. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I did not know Youtube could display the content licensing status. I think I would be right if they did not though--a screenshot of anything that isn't already explicitly in the public domain wouldn't be allowed? Anyway, I'll look it up myself. Mary Samsonite (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, not everything on YouTube is free use. Videos with marked under CC are, though. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Mary Samsonite, 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! Helen(💬📖) 02:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the the cookie offer, but I do this for free. Mary Samsonite (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]