User talk:Longhart

February 2015
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. An edit you recently made to Video sculpture seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to 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. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Video sculpture. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Amortias (T)(C) 22:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

June 2017
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive about ownership of articles, which you showed at Amanda Long. The next time you continue to disruptively edit Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Murph 9000 (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Admin, please note that the above appears to be acknowledgement that the Amanda Long page is an autobiography, and the editor's apparent ownership mentality is exactly why the policy against autobiography exists.  General Ization  Talk   04:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not "your page". Please see WP:OWN. Furthermore, you really shouldn't edit an article about yourself, see our conflict of interest policy. Until such time as your legal threats are retracted - or settled in court, you will remain blocked here, as detailed in our policy on legal threats. SQL Query me!  04:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Ms. Long, with all due respect, this issue has arisen because you have not taken the time to read about and understand Wikipedia culture and, more importantly, policies, before undertaking to create an autobiography here. As previously explained, autobiography is strongly discouraged for the very reason that their authors tend to feel that others should not be able to contribute to the articles they have written about themselves. Further, the editors against whom you issued threats only made improvements to the article. See, , , .  General Ization  Talk   04:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, the orphan tag (added in the last edit I linked above) means that other editors are encouraged to identify and create potential wikilinks to a given article; no one can "make" an article into an orphan by adding to or removing content from the article itself. It is a way of improving the visibility and utility of an article in the encyclopedia.  General Ization  Talk   04:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Please read the policy on article ownership, which has been linked here several times. It is not your page to delete (and you can't delete it anyway).  The page is the property of the Wikipedia community, not the person who created the page, or the person who is the subject of the page.  The article will either qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia and be kept, or fail to qualify and be deleted.  The most likely criteria used for that purpose will be WP:NARTIST.  The issue of eligibility has already been raised, but it has not yet been formally nominated for deletion.   Murph 9000  (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Did you actually use the word mansplain unironically? I didn't even know that was possible.  E Eng  05:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:EEng, that was rude! A new editor not following our policies doesn't call for your anti-feminist gravedancing. Did you read to the part where she said "This is hurting me"? This is a real person; please be more civil. Snuge purveyor (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you read the part where she said Only because Wiki is history written by men I'll be left out? That's not feminism, it's whining. I know actual feminists.  E Eng  00:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not Wikia, not the place to write an article about yourself, hopefully refresh yourself and realizing on that.  S A 1 3 B r o  (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up
Hi. My name is GoldenRing and I'm an admin on the English Wikipedia. Reviewing the series of messages and templates above, it looks like you have had a pretty rough introduction to us and nobody has really taken the time to introduce you to our encyclopaedia properly.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is an encyclopaedia. It's one which anyone can edit, but that doesn't mean anyone can add anything they like. Firstly, for a subject to have a page, it has to be notable. While there are various subject-specific guidelines for establishing notability, it all boils down to the same thing: subjects must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to be considered notable and therefore have an article on Wikipedia.

Information presented on Wikipedia must be presented neutrally. That doesn't mean that everyone who edits an article must be neutral about it in themselves - everyone has biases, whether they realise it or not - but it means they have to distance themselves from their biases and write neutrally, accepting input from other editors with other biases. Experience shows that some situations make it extremely difficult for editors to put this distance between themselves and the article to enable them to write neutrally. In these situations, we strongly discourage them from editing the article at all. It is not absolutely forbidden, but it is restricted to some fairly specific circumstances and there are extra rules about doing it. That is why we have policies about editing by people who are paid to do so, editing by people with a conflict of interest and people editing articles about themselves. The last appears to apply particularly to you, and if you read that policy you will find that you are very strongly discouraged from editing the article yourself, unless it is to correct the most obvious of vandalism or the most egregious of false information.

Information presented on Wikipedia must also be backed up by reliable, published sources. While not all reliable sources need to be independent of the article subject, they do need to be objectively reliable for the information in the article which they back up.

And, lastly, wikipedia operates by consensus. That means one person can't come in and dictate what goes into an article; if someone disagrees with them about what should or shouldn't go in an article, it needs to be discussed and an agreement reached. It is because this consensus process is so important to us that making legal threats is taken particularly seriously. Legal threats are seen as a way of circumventing the process of consensus and forcing your own way. You are of course entirely entitled to begin legal proceedings; we only ask that you choose between building consensus regarding an article here or taking legal action elsewhere. Being involved in legal action, or making the threat of legal action, is incompatible with neutrally building an article through consensus and so we do not allow people to edit here who have made legal threats.

It is absolutely possible for you to regain your editing privileges here. To do so, you will need to:


 * Convince someone that you have understood what I've written above and how your actions here have led to your being blocked from editing.
 * Explain how you intend to act differently in the future to avoid being reblocked.
 * Explain what and how you intend to contribute to the encyclopaedia - what types of articles you are interested in editing, what sort of sources you have access to and so on.

Since you are blocked from editing, you can't do this in the normal way by posting an unblock request here. Instead you can either:


 * File a ticket with the unblock ticket request system,
 * Send an email to an administrator - for instance, go to User:GoldenRing and click the 'Email this user' link, or
 * Send an email to the arbitration committee. This last should probably be a last resort.

I wish you good luck. GoldenRing (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I've just noticed that your email access has also been revoked, which makes the UTRS your only remaining avenue for getting unblocked. GoldenRing (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Amanda Long for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amanda Long is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Amanda Long until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  E Eng  02:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Amanda Long, self portrait.png


The file File:Amanda Long, self portrait.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "orphaned file, no foreseeable use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)