User talk:Fantastic 10

Tone
Thanks for your recent contributions to NCIS (season 3). Unfortunately the additions were written in a style that is unencyclopaedic and they have been reverted. Before adding this information again, I suggest you review Writing better articles for advice on how to address the problems. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Nor are summaries supposed to be excessively long. They are supposed to be short. That's why the field is called "ShortSummary". The summary that you added her is 6-7 times as long as it should be and, if it was copyedited for correct punctuations, spelling and tone, it would be even longer. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Fantastic 10, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 16:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

NCIS (season 3)
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough on my talk page when I discussed your edits to NCIS (season 3) at length. Sentences need to be written in a proper form, not abbreviated and choppy. "The team realizes there is an earwig in Cody"s ear" is encyclopaedic. "Team realizes earwig’s in Cody’s ear" is not. This edit is an example of unencyclopaedic content. A sentence that flows, such as "The teenage son of a Marine Major holds his classmates hostage inside a classroom by threatening them with a bomb strapped to his chest" is encyclopaedic. Short, choppy sentences such as "Mr. Meyers is a Marine Major. His teen son's Cody. Cody and other student are in a classroom. A bomb's strapped to Cody's chest" are unencyclopadic. The whole addition includes too much detail. It's not necessary to know names unless they're crucial to the summary, nor is it necessary to know that "Cody's holding a remote." Your additions are blow by blow accounts of what you see, which is not an appropriate way to write an episode summary. The version before you edited is a good example of how the text should flow. Please don't persist in adding the unencyclopaedic summaries. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again I've had to remove the fragmented sentences and speculation that you've added to the article. "I think" and "Gibbs probably thinks" are speculative and classed as original research. Statements such as "Cody zipped up his jacket, so Ziva's unable to take photos of the entire bomb" are ambiguous for anyone who hasn't see the episode. Cody's mother's name, and for that matter Cody's own name are largely irrelevant. Such information serves only to bloat the episode summary. I've now copyedited the summary and adding the missing information on the earwig. That should have been added because it explains why Gibbs suspected that the boy wasn't acting alone. Otherwise the rest of the summary is fine now, although I have left it open for you to explain what happened after that. Perhaps you should try drafting that in your userspace, rather than on the live article. It can be added when it's finally encyclopaedic. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Message for AussieLegend
Oh my gosh!!!!! Why isn't it okay to say that Gibbs probably thinks the boy's forced to do this? Isn't it necessary to mention the Marine Major's son is Cody? Isn't it important to say that Cody's mom's Angela?
 * It isn't okay to say it because it's a speculative comment. Wikipedia doesn't deal in speculation. As I indicated above, the names are really not important. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Lethal Weapon 4, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.
 * Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. 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 produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Lethal Weapon 4 was changed by Fantastic 10 (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2010-05-25T19:46:50+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I won't do it again.

__NOINDEX__ Amalthea  09:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We also tend to disregard appeals such as that because of WP:BROTHER...  Mr. R00t     Leave me a Message   22:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Message for Mr. R00t
I didn't understand your message. What's the meaning of your message?

Help
Am I misusing the unblock requests?
 * An admin will disable your right to submit unblock requests if it becomes disruptive.  m  o  n  o   18:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * An admin has. If you want to edit here, Fantastic 10/Timmy Polo, follow the recommendations in the WP:Standard offer. Stop editing Wikipedia for 6 months, and we'll see what we can do. Amalthea  18:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)