User talk:Goldstein2021

January 2021[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Elections in Virginia, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also on Politics of Virginia— Diannaa (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mojo Hand. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Politics of Virginia seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

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.

Acroterion (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Harvey Oswald [edit]

I undid your change to the lead. This is a long-standing version of the lead which has been discussed at length on the talk page. It's not up to you to arbitrarily change it without first gettign consensus. Meters (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no basis for your charge that my change was "arbitrary." It is based on fact: it has never been proven that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy (to say nothing of having acted alone), and neither the Warren Commission nor the HSCA were courts of law subject to rules of evidence and procedure that would have produced legal proof. For you (and whomever else forms your "consensus") to state as fact that Oswald assassinated President Kennedy is not only irresponsible in light of the fact that the government has still not published all pertinent information on the subject. It is also illustrative of why Wikipedia is constantly looking for handouts - and potential contributors are reluctant to oblige. Your tone is unnecessarily haughty and accusatory as well, indicating a defensiveness born of lack of expertise on the Kennedy assassination. Pity.