User talk:2603:7080:C43E:B500:2DEE:62BB:DA96:1643

October 2021

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to UglyDolls—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to UglyDolls. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at UglyDolls, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: UglyDolls was changed by 2603:7080:C43E:B500:2DEE:62BB:DA96:1643 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.956499 on 2021-10-14T18:23:59+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

For when you get back from the ban

You've had a lot of edits reverted without explanation so let me give you one. This is part of the rules here, that I am about to relate.

All Edits need to have all of the following criteria to stay. Not one, not some, ALL. If any part of any of these is missed, the edit gets reverted. That's just how it works here.

1) A reliable source/reference cited (in the case of plot summaries, sometimes there may be a point disputed that doesn't have an external article to link, and this is when you go to the talk page and add a timestamp or quote from the film. However, it may still be in violation, even if accurate to the film. See Number 3.)

2) Good grammar and professional writing style. This means no fragments, no run-on sentences, no badly placed punctuation, no misspellings, no childish wording, no redundancies, no thrashing the same point to death by excessively detailing it or bringing it up a hundred times, no no adding random trivia that messes up the flow of a sentence or distracts from the main point of the paragraph, and in general no using any format or dialect other than professional standard English.

3) The item needs to be constructive (meaning, it doesn't make the article look or read less professionally), and NOT to have been decided by multiple users that it is not making the article any more helpful. If a lot of established users with experience deem anything cannot stay, don't keep trying to add it. IF YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE THAT AGREES SOMETHING SHOULD BE IN THE ARTICLE, you go with the majority vote and let it drop. Period.

4) Must adhere to the rules relevant to whichever type of article it is, as laid out in the Manual of style. As an example, this part of the Manual of Style explains that some things about movies are more suited to fandom/wiki sites than here. This site is meant to be professional overview, not an in-universe lore exposition. Primarily here, we have facts about release and publishing and production. The summary is merely a LESS THAN 700 WORD summing up of the BARE BASICS of the plot, nothing more. Only summaries of crazy-detailed films like 3 hour epics get to go longer, and even then only with mass community consensus in the talk page, to override the rules. Also, the MOS says quite clearly that you never put cast names in the summary. It's redundant, and even silly, because the cast list is immediately below. No one goes to an article and reads the plot to find out who played who, they just skip to the cast list section anyway.

I hope this helps. I highly suspect you are the same user whose other two IPs have been blocked for spamming this article with unhelpful edits. You ask a lot "what did I do wrong" or "give me a reason" so there you go, a full explanation. People have linked you the manual of style and also individual chapters from it, and also links to the sandbox and teahouse to practice making constructive edits, but you have ignored all of these. Therefore, not a single edit you have made follows the above criteria, nor does it follow the Manual of style guidelines. Most of your edits are more suitable to a fan page/lore list. Find the Uglydolls Fandom Wiki page, I think you'll see the difference between that sort of site and this one. Thanks! EEBuchanan (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

---