Hello, Lynchenberg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Blue Velvet (film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• film]], written and directed by [[David Lynch]]. Critics view it as an excellent example of [[psychological horror],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gamesradar.com/25-most-disturbing-movies/|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lynchenberg! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Lightbreather (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Don't Look Now, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously mean to say the Guardian, Rotten Tomatoes, the Criterion Collection, among others, are not reliable sources? I'm the one whose not promoting a neutral point of view? Lynchenberg (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lynchenberg. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Clive Barker. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Yunshui ^雲_水 09:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that; I mistakenly took you to be the IP editor reinserting the material. I'm now fairly sure you were acting in good faith, and have removed the block from your account. Mea culpa, sorry. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I didn't even notice.

Hello, Lynchenberg. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lynchenberg. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marilyn Manson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill O'Reilly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Jordan Peterson‎, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Not a fan of his, but there's no source for your edit so it is a violation of WP:BLP. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On another board, a man who knew Ed Wood in the 70s talked about the differences in Wood's personality and Tim Burton's movie portrayal. I'm glad someone that knew him confirms my own feelings about Depp's silly performance (imo). Whatever. It was a light, fun, ooky spooky fairy tale. "I have thoroughly enjoyed all of your comments regarding Burton's film "Ed Wood" and thought I would round out the discussion with some of my personal observations about Ed Wood in person and the differences I observed between him and his characterization in the film by Johnny Depp. I met Ed in1973 and remained in contact with him through 1976 -- just two year before his death. I spent great amounts of time talking with him about his work with Bela, watched "Plan 9 from Outer Space" with him and some members of the cast and experienced him both drunk and sober. It is important to note that, when I met him, he was in his 50s and the period in which the film takes place he was in his 30s. Taking this into account, I am not certain that his personality and behavioral traits would have changed as drastically as would have been necessary to account for the differences between his portrayal in the film and the man I spent time with in the 1970s. Here are a few observations: Ed Wood was a consummate hustler, charmer and man who exuded supreme confidence. He could sell the Brooklyn Bridge twice over. On one evening, he looked at me and said, "Bob, I consider myself a protégé of Orson Welles, because we have so many similarities in our styles of filmmaking." He smiled and continued extolling himself with references to the brilliance of his filmmaking. These references, moreover, included, hiding the broken tentacle of the octopus in"Bride of the Monster" and how he overcame his special effects disaster with the balsa wood flying saucers in "Plan 9 from Outer Space". He was a calm, self-assured man even when he was complimenting himself on aspects of filmmaking that were insignificant in comparison to those of Orson Welles. He was far too calm and self-assured to ever have been as frenetic and hyperactive as Johnny Depp portrayed him in the film. Depp's characterization was hyperactive and exuded both desperation and insecurity that were nowhere to be seen in the Ed Wood I spent time with. He proudly showed me a selection of the pornographic novels he had written and noted that many of them would ultimately make it onto the screen as major feature films. That was Ed Wood. He never flinched at what others might consider a hopeless situation and thoroughly believed in his ability to circumvent every obstacle in his career. I am sure that if Burton had just listened to Wood's voice on the taped interviews I did with him, he would have known that the Depp interpretation was not entirely appropriate. To sum up, Ed Wood was master of his universe even though it was a very small and, in some ways, insignificant universe. His conviction that he was destined for greater things oozed from every pore in his body and even during our last conversations before the Lugosi biography was released, he exuded this same conviction with little or no reason for having such confidence. He was a compelling personality and never approached the level of insecurity and oftentimes panic-stricken persona conveyed by Depp in the film. Ed Wood was a compelling, almost mesmerizing individual and a very likable one at that. His relationship with Bela was synergistic but never parasitic, as some would suggest. Bela and Ed needed each other in those years and both profited from their relationship." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:562:5F00:51FB:CB0F:295D:60B5 (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not blank content from articles without providing a valid rationale in your edit summary, as you did with these edits to Dave Sim. If you wish to dispute another editor's edits, or material that may be controversial, please do so on the article's talk page. Please be advised that when disagreeing with content, editors are expected to adhere to Wikipedia's policies concerning assuming good faith, and abstaining from personal attacks. If you have difficulty reaching an agreement, there are a number of different solutations prescribed on Wikipedia for dispute resolution, such as Third Opinion and consensus discussion. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightscream: But the content I blanked was only content I added! Do I not have a right to remove my own content if I feel I am being bullied? Lynchenberg (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lynchenberg: No. Inclusion or removal of content is determined by adherence to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Once you add material to Wikipedia, you cease having any proprietary ownership over it. No one one editor owns Wikipedia articles or their content.

And in any event, you were not "bullied." You made some significant edits to an article, and when another editor looked at that content, he saw that some of it was relevant, well-written, well-supported by citations, etc., but that one passage from that addition was not. That may be a critical viewpoint, but it is not "bullying". The focus of my edit was on the content. Not the editor who added it. But if I composed my edit summary in a way that came across in a way that hurt your feelings, then I sincerely apologize. It was not my intention. Nightscream (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightscream: That's okay, I'll leave it be. Lynchenberg (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lynchenberg: Okay. ;-) Nightscream (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If you "see no reason to name drop" "siouxsie and the banshees" in the body of the article for Haskins' quote, it would be better to open a completely new section. You will also have to ping/contact all the users who had replied to the previous rfc, and ask them if they would not oppose to this change. And to avoid confusion, you'd show them the new version you would like to see in the body of the article, and write it inside this {{xt| }, to make it appear in green color. Woovee (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm NJZombie. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Robert (doll) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. NJZombie (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be mad at me, I didn't mean to. NJZombie Lynchenberg (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to Mike Patton. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NJZombie (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NJZombie DANCING IS FORBIDDEN!!!!!

NJZombie Btw, purely out of curiosity, is it possible to delete your Wikipedia account?Lynchenberg (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wanna explain what you meant when you wrote this? mftp dan ^oops 17:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only four genres allowed per article! SOMEONE ADDED MORE! IT WAS BAD! IT WAS NAUGHTY! I DIDN'T LIKE IT, SO I REVERTED IT!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAA! Lynchenberg (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop doing that. If you persist, you will be blocked again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am more concerned for your own well-being than Wikipedia's here. I'm not ordering you to leave the project by any means, but this place seems to distress you quite a bit, so why do you continue? Is there something else in the project you could help with or focus your efforts on? Alternatively, I could try and discuss the four-genre "rule" which isn't really a rule but really a suggestion that we should try very hard to stick with, if you're interested. There is a certain editor (whom I will not name out of respect for civility, but I am sure you are familiar with - in fact your edit summaries suggest you probably learned the practice from them) that misleadingly treats the guideline like it is law and it is not always possible or effective to bind to four. It does lack consistency in enforcement as well, unfortunately, so I understand the frustration very well actually, but it doesn't help to get mad at everyone for it. Sometimes individual discussions can work around parameter guidelines in special cases. mftp dan ^oops 15:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie we’re right back to ridiculous, nonsensical, and insulting edit summaries over the past 5 days, despite your warning last month. NJZombie (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any further personal attacks will result in a longer block and the loss of your ability to edit your talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OhNoitsJamie, this user has now resorted to using a sock IP account to force one of the same edits they made as Lynchenberg, while also continuing to make false aspersions against me of hating autistic people that you warned them of previously.[1] NJZombie (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The next block for this sort of disruption will be considerably longer. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lynchenberg. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Spicy (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]