User talk:EditorOctober1990

February 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Carrie (novel) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Carrie (novel) was changed by EditorOctober1990 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.863429 on 2015-02-15T04:46:06+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Scarface (1983 film) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Scarface (1983 film) was changed by EditorOctober1990 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.913643 on 2015-02-21T13:05:41+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Return to Oz. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.
 * If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * 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 place on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Return to Oz was changed by EditorOctober1990 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.88839 on 2015-02-21T13:42:55+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Scary Movie, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sum mer PhD (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Carrie (novel) with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. &#160; Discant X  12:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carrie (novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tommy Ross. 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) 08:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Exorcist (film). Thelimiter (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Wizard of Oz
EditorOctober1990, once again I see you are adding to the plot summary of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The last time you did this, you added some good information but also some extraneous, verbose, and incorrect fluff. At the time, I fixed and shorted the information you added. More needs to be deleted from the plot, not added, as stated in WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE (please click on that link and read it). At Wikipedia, we are required to write in a neutral tone without too much descriptive language. As well, anything added to Wikipedia must have a reliable source; we can't just add information that we know. If you are finished with your editing I will cut from the plot summary again. Also, please consider using the "Show preview" button when editing instead of repeatedly clicking the "Save page" button; this keeps the number of edits down to a minimum. If you have any questions, feel free to reply to this message here or leave a message on my Talk page. Prhartcom (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: I have removed the verbose additions you added to the plot yet again. Please stop adding it. Instead please work on removing unnecessary plot detail as stated above, as this plot synopsis is too long. Prhartcom (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The Little Mermaid
Hello EO1990 - I appreciate the extensive work you have been doing on the plot summary of this Anderson tale, but I am afraid most of it will have to be reverted. In addition to lengthening an already-overlong summary and introducing a significant number of punctuation errors with the use of commas, the tenor and tone of the first paragraph and some of your other changes are entirely inappropriate to an encyclopedia article. The job of a summary in an article such as this is to present a bare bones capsule recounting of the major events of the story, not to re-tell it. For example, your opening sentence of "Far out at sea, where the water is as blue as cornflower, yet clear as crystal, dwell the mer-folk" might be acceptable as a retelling but in tone and content in not in the style of an encyclopedia. The sentence that you replaced - "The Little Mermaid dwells in an underwater kingdom with her father (the sea king or mer-king), her grandmother, and her five sisters. Her five sisters are each born one year apart" - is appropriate in language and tone. Rather than do a wholesale reversion of your work, though, I thought it might be a good idea to give you a heads-up here and suggest that you yourself shorten rather than lengthen the summary and re-edit some of your more colorful phrasings to encyclopedia-appropriate language. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2014
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. AD (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. ''I have been reaching out to you (see my comments above) but you continue to ignore them and continue to put your excessively verbose plot summary back in. Please stop doing this or you will be reported and possibly blocked from editing.'' Prhartcom (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

FINAL WARNING ABOUT EXCESSIVE PLOT SUMMARIES
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

FINAL WARNING
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy and How to write a plot summary guideline by inserting unpublished information and excessive plot detail and other excessively descriptive language into an article, as you did at the following articles:
 * The Wonderful Wizard of Oz
 * Return to Oz
 * Emerald City
 * Silver Shoes
 * The Little Mermaid
 * Cinderella
 * It (novel)
 * Carrie (novel)
 * Carrie (1976 film)
 * The Virgin Suicides (film)
 * The Diary of Ellen Rimbauer (miniseries)
 * Rose Red (miniseries)
 * Gramma (short story)
 * Clown (film)
 * Cell (novel)
 * A. J. Cook
 * Wicked (Maguire novel)

PLEASE stop doing this. Other editors and I have reverted almost all of your changes. It is not important for a plot summary to have such excessive detail; instead, it is important to summarize the plot as succinctly as possible. Plot summaries usually need text removed from them, not added. We would like you click edit and then update this message, below my signature, with your response, pledging to stop adding your unsourced and excessively descriptive plot detail immediately. Please click on and read the links I supply above to the applicable Wikipedia guidelines. We will be glad to answer any of your questions. Otherwise, it will be necessary to report you to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Prhartcom (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: I see you are still adding excessive plot detail. Please click edit and reply with your response below. Prhartcom (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI
There is a discussion at WP:ANI about your edits. Sundayclose (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You are at it again
EditorOctober1990, I see you are at it again, completely oblivious to the fact that all of your edits have been reverted and even that you posses a Talk page. I see that your latest edits are to Was (novel) and are entirely unsourced as usual, when a policy states No original research. I wish you would instead read the following sources I found for you, then make your improvements to this article from what you read here in these secondary sources: If you get this message, please click Edit and reply below. Prhartcom (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * http://articles.latimes.com/1992-06-04/news/vw-1186_1_geoff-ryman
 * http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2014/07/geoff_ryman_s_wizard_of_oz_novel_was_reviewed.html
 * https://thehungryreader.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/book-review-was-by-geoff-ryman/
 * https://www.sfsite.com/06b/wa202.htm

Maybe this will help
EditorOctober1990, please read Citing sources, particularly the section about Inline sources. You could also examine other articles to see how others do it. It is important that you understand we do not write about what we know, rather, as editors we write what is in reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines, books, and online articles, like the ones I gave you above. Then we must cite those sources so that they appear as footnotes next to what we write. Please leave a message below letting me know you read my message and I will be glad to answer any questions. Prhartcom (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing and ignoring all warnings. Please show that you can interact with other users on this page, and correct your practice according to the advice you've been given. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)