User talk:LONGEDDY

LONGEDDY, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi LONGEDDY! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LONGEDDY, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --0pen$0urce (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral writing[edit]

I reverted your edits. You are not writing with a neutral tone, with your revisions really sounding like it's more of a soapbox against the channel's closing than anything else. I notice that you are a new user and I really recommend you reading over WP:NPOV and WP:RS before re-adding any content.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop revert warring. The lawsuit is actually about Voom in general and NOT about specifically this channel. I've included a brief bit about it, but that's all that really needs to be placed in the article. The thing is, you're using this as a place to speak out against the whole Dish Network thing and this isn't what Wikipedia is for. The links you're giving are unusable as sources. Blogs are NOT usable as reliable sources except in rare occasions and the blog you're linking to is not one of those exceptions. As far as the legal link goes, I've linked to the Voom page and that's really all we need about that. Anything else (such as problems with AMC) is extra and isn't something that should be placed on the article. AMC has not voiced any indication that they'll bring the channel back, at least not in any RS and you putting it in the article is considered to be original research.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters HD[edit]

You've mentioned several times that I am not being subjective, yet I see you taking actions and making edits as well as reverts that appear to lack neutral point of view--0pen$0urce (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC) The Voom HD network has very little notability and the list of channels that each had there own articles have even less if not none. Kung Fu HD was tagged for no references for 3 years. I nominated for delete and it is gone. Looks like you registered an account to save Monsters HD. That is fine, but there are other articles. Heck there is a whole group dedicated to horror, I am a member. Here's the problem your spamming an article that basically had no references until a week ago with new and poorly sourced ones what appears to be at random. Most of your references are not major media or news, but yes "obscure blogs" and websites. The references appear to be repeating themselves, with mention of the VOOM lawsuit and the channel going off the air THAT IS IT. Not supporting the inline citation they are supposed to be. Also before you just arbitrarily revert, please take into consideration why. And you want to talk subjective, please take a look in the mirror and lastly focus on content not on editors. Yes I think this article is obscure and not notable, as supported by the lack of quality, reliable references. Not certainly how that is being subjective, but the same could be said about your recent actions and perceived intentions.--0pen$0urce (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think your contributions could certainly offer a possible argument to keep the article however as mentioned before Wikipedia has millions of articles. You have a made a rather large volume of at times inexperienced edits to one article as well as discussions about that article. I haven't seen any other contributions. I invited you check to check the horror project as we have plenty of work there and other articles that need attention. This isn't to stifle you, but this is a community/public/shared encyclopedia, which means while you may have put in a lot of work on that article you do not own it. Also further concerns could now raised about that article's point of view, or not being neutral point of view, as well as advocacy, and undue weight to a minority view. This could be raised for certain with the Rue Morque references as well. So as to not hinder your efforts and have an issue of POV raised, (yes, I am considering this for sure) I would take a break from Monster's HD. Let it Percolate, ferment. Allow other members of the community to chime in, contribute. Certainly watch what is happening, and made contributions as needed. --0pen$0urce (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Faith goes around and comes around. I noticed you started by claiming subjective edits. Also just noticed insinuation of timing and "trying to delete history" yet you also mention good faith. Practice what you preach sir, you have indirectly made insinuations directed towards me basically since you created your account. Nominating articles that clearly lack notability and reliable, verifiable references does not constitute an agenda. Especially an established contributor who has made 100s of edits over the span of several years on a wide array of articles. This compared to a very new editor, who almost immediately got into an edit war and did not offer good faith by making almost instant accusations and insinuations. Also an issue by not just me but other editors has been made on the wp:pov concern of your edits as well as wp:undue. Sorry I will to work with a newbie when there intentions appear to be good, but that is hard based on your conduct. I don't like to be repeatedly referenced as not editing in good faith. Those very same accusations probably hold more weight on your actions, to include aggressive editing one article as a snowball fight to save something that so far has not passed consensus to be kept.--0pen$0urce (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT WAR Warning[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --0pen$0urce (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would take a step back and really read the five pillars as well as look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror. Plenty of other horror articles that need attention. Also check out the featured section. There you will see examples of good and featured articles. These are the gold standard of wikipedia articles. Right now it looks like your edit warring and while nothing wrong with jumping, being that you are new, take a moment to look around and read some of the polices people citing. Give other editors the benefit of the doubt, there is no rush.--0pen$0urce (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monsters HD, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages It's Alive! and It's Alive (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated citations[edit]

Hi- just thought I'd direct you towards Wikipedia:Cite#Repeated_citations. Whenever you use the same source, it's better to use a repeated cite format than to repeatedly list the same source multiple times. If you have a source that's only a few pages long (such as a magazine article), it's better to list the magazine as one source in its entirety rather than split it up into specific pages. You can technically list the same sources over and over again, but it doesn't show more notability for something and it just makes the resources section more cluttered. One last thing to remember for sources is that it doesn't matter how many sources you link to as much as the quality of the sources. You can have quantity and still have an article get deleted, as was the case with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgetown University Lecture Fund. People trying to save that article listed over 60 sources, yet none of the sources showed notability enough to warrant keeping.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tokyogirl79 -Thank you so much! You were so nice to do that!! I am so grateful! It looks so much better!!!. As far as the quality of the sources, I think they are pretty sound and reliable for the respective sections. OpenSource's suggestion of sections was a great one! I do agree with you - quantity doesn't merit quality. Thanks again Tokyogirl79. Much appreciated!!!!! Sorry for my previous rants, too! I feel bad now after you did this for me. Thanks!LONGEDDY (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it's no big. If you can't rant at your fellow Wikipedians then who can you rant at?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monsters HD, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vampira (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kung Fu HD.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Blue EagleUK (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where'd you go?[edit]

Just wondering what happened? You were churning out edits on Monster's HD and a couple of Voom related articles fairly aggressively for about a month and then you vanished. --0pen$0urce (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tendonitis. NOt sure how I did it but laying off they typing. I must admit, the typing seems to aggrevate it. . Hoping to get back to Wikipedia soon once the inflammation dies down. Ugh. Happy holidays!LONGEDDY (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]