User talk:TheKurgan86

May 2017
Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. An edit that you recently made to Blade Runner 2049 seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Spider-Man: Homecoming. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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: Spider-Man: Homecoming was changed by TheKurgan86 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.855393 on 2017-05-21T16:40:09+00:00.

Movie premises and plot summaries
Plot summaries and premises of movies can easily be written in editors' own words. Accordingly, there is no justification to use a non-free synopsis—even one published by the studio—in a movie article, as you attempted to do with The Mummy (2017 film). —C.Fred (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017
Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to The Untouchables (film), without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you.  The Old Jacobite  The '45  11:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Blade Runner 2049. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced content
All claims—especially subjective opinion—on Wikipedia must be sourced, and this includes the critical reception of films. I have had to revert your edits at Superman Returns, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Man of Steel (film) because you did not include sources. Please read WP:Verifiability and MOS:FILM for further advice on sourcing content and editing film articles. Betty Logan (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. Widr (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Transformers: The Last Knight, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you — ~   Zape rator YnossPro  44 71 ★     ✉  /  CONTRIBS  ~''' 15:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Kill Bill: Volume 1, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you.  The Old Jacobite  The '45  21:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Jaws (film). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Indiana Jones (franchise) to Untitled Fifth Indiana Jones film (your addition has since been removed). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Akira (1988 film), you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Red (2010 film). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
You have continued to make numerous non-constructive edits to Wikipedia article, mostly by inserting personal essaying written in fannish, non-encyclopedic WP:TONE. Multiple editors have reverted these inappropriate edits. Please read this bluelinked policy as well as the general editing primer at Five Pillars of Wikipedia. After all the warnings you have been given, an admin's next block will be longer than the 31 hours of your previous block. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Betty Logan. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Lawnmower Man (film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yet again editors are having to remove your insertion of unsourced content and misrepresentation of the criticial consensus. At Conan the Barbarian (1982 film) for instance, which is a featured article, the heavily sourced critical reception section states "The media's reactions toward Conan were polarized. Aspects of the film heavily criticized by one side were regarded in a positive light by the other; Professor Gunden stated that 'for every positive review the film garnered, it received two negative ones'." Yet you went and made this edit misrepresenting the film as having "recieved [sic] widespread critical acclaim". You have been reverted by numerous editors and have been blocked multiple times and yet you persist. Frankly I cannot fathom why you have been allowed back to edit and it is clear you are WP:NOTHERE. Betty Logan (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Indef
Because you continue to add poorly sourced content, change "acclaim" on articles and are continuing to edit disruptively with I believe almost every single edit you've ever made reverted, you're obviously not here to work with the community and help build an encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail  talk  21:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC) __NOINDEX__