Anyone know why this plot summary was declined?

@Peter_pbn​ of course.... its not a good summary. It deserved to be condensed. What is the reason that a person can edit another person's summary, other than the fact that a summary might need to be edited?

I don't see any reason to remove details like character names. You can write your own summary and add it.

@Peter_pbn​ Your responses do not answer either question I asked. I dont see the reason for you to respond if you are going to ignore my question, and ask me a second question and ignore my second question as well. I answered your questions.... why not show me the same respect and courtesy and answer mine? What is the point in having an edit button on a person's plot if not to edit it? I did more than simply remove the character's names. Please read what I actually did. The plot summary was unnecessarily bloated... I condensed it. What is the actual community guideline that it breaks? If you cannot answer these two questions please refrain from responding a third time... I'm only interested in knowing what rule I broke and why a person is able to edit another person's plot summary.

@SirDredwick​ What is the point in having a "Reply" button on a contributor's comment if not to reply?

@keyword_expert​ Reply with what?... Pointless circular statements that don't answer the questions?..... I asked what community guideline caused the rejection. Responding with the opinion that "I dont think you should have done it" is pointless and essentially amounts to trolling. A champion IMDb user should have the courtesy to refrain from trolling the boards. I'm fairly certain IMDb didn't include the reply button so that people would troll. And I'm fairly certain there is an actual reason that people can edit plot summaries. Fortunately Fran is here to help newbie users like myself.

@SirDredwick​ Summaries can be edited primarily to make corrections. It's not about changing the content or style of someone else's work just because you think it is "not good." That is especially true when the summary in question has the author's name listed, as it is in this case: With your edits, you were either inappropriately putting words in the mouth of Nick Riganas (if your edits were accepted) or if you also tried to delete his name as part of your edits, then you would have been co-opting his work. You posted the entirety of your attempted rewrite of that other author's summary, calling the original summary "not . . . good" (without explaining what you believe was "not good" about it other than you thought it should be "condensed"), and yet you apparently can't handle the slightest bit of helpful criticism explaining a single thing that is wrong with your rewrite. If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen.  This is not just a question of whether your attempted rewrite violates the guidelines, but rather whether you should have diminished someone else's work.  In addition to the point made by @Peter_pbn about your unwarranted removal of the main characters' names, I can give you several additional things wrong with your attempted rewrite that may not necessarily violate the guidelines but are still things that (if your edits were accepted) would tarnish the original: 1. You refer to the teenage characters as "young girls," yet they are 17 years old. A "young girl" implies a child -- certainly someone younger than 17. If you want to refer to their ages, give their ages as 17 or refer to them as "teenagers" or "teenage girls." 2. You have stripped the original summary of the point that the storm is what forces the gang to be in the house for so long (in the author's words, they are "trapped" there). You have replaced that clear cause-and-effect point with the rather bland "and [they] make their way to the house." This could be read as something that happens after the storm, yet in the actual plot the storm keeps them in the house. 3. You have changed "devoid of . . . mercy" to "void of mercy." Although both are grammatically correct, the latter phrase is disfavored. 4. Your edit of "pain and death" to solely "death" results in a factual error. In the film, not all the visitors to the house that night end up dying. 5. Your phrase "those that made their way" is not grammatically correct. It should be "those who made their way." Some of your other edits were acceptable, but in general when editing other named authors' work you should tread lightly. If your purpose in doing so is not to correct factual, grammatical, or typographical errors (or to add links to data elsewhere in the database), then as @Peter_pbn suggests, you can always write your own summary in your own preferred voice and style.  So perhaps you can answer the question you have already been asked: why didn't you write your own summary of the film?

@keyword_expert​ "yet you apparently can't handle the slightest bit of helpful criticism explaining a single thing that is wrong with your rewrite" ---- what criticism explained anything? The first person said he didn't see any reason to remove details like character names". That's it. He didn't answer my questions. And neither did you. You trolled my question as well, acting as if I was in the wrong for asking why my comment was rejected. What "help" was given at any point? Do you see your comment as helpful? Do you see the other guy's comment as helpful? Is there an invisible comment that only users with a lot of points can see?!? Its interesting you wrote so much detail in this response, now, after I had to ask my questions so many times. I began reading all of your words with interest as I was hoping to hear what guideline I broke. But I get to the part where you imply that I can't handle criticism explaining something, and I'm left wondering if you are reading a response from someone that I myself cannot see....? Again, someone saying "I don't think you should have done this" is not an answer to my question. Its not an explanation. Its nothing. What, users are supposed to turn to their significant other and say "honey, I learned why I shouldn't have changed that plot summary... because this guy didn't think I should have done it! He says I should have left the character names in place! Problem solved!!" Suuuuure. Imagine if you had put this much work into responding to my questions when I asked them, instead of trolling first to bait me into a lengthy back and forth. I honestly am not going to gie you the pleasure of reading all of your words, so I'm sorry to have wasted as much of your time as you and the other guy have wasted of mine. I think it would be best to wait for the professional to respond with an explanation of the guideline that I broke, which is what I asked in the first place. I am sure they will give a troll-less explanation that is devoid of ego, which is really all that needed to be said in the first place. Tootles

@SirDredwick​ I knew you wouldn't read my criticism (or would pretend to not read it), based on your prior contributions to this message board. (Your accusations of trolling are pure projection.)  But that's fine by me that you didn't read my words, because you were not the sole intended recipient. I also wrote it for @Fran and IMDb staff, so they could have the full picture of what exactly was wrong with your attempted edits. 

That comment... I did read it because it popped up in my email. To be honest I don't think Fran needs you to explain to her what was wrong with my attempted edits. I'm sure she can handle that job all herself, being she is an employee of IMDb, and you are not.  Yes, you did troll. The previous guy trolled too. When I asked the questions he could have answered my questions. If I accepted his first comment then I would have to assume the only reason that my edit was rejected is because I removed details like the characters' names. Though I am going to assume by your lengthy post (that I didn't read) that you have maaaaany reasons for why my edits were rejected. And your initial comment could have simply answered my questions as well, but your comment wasn't in regards to my initial post. It didn't address my questions. Your initial comment was in defense of the other guy, in which you trolled the idea that I insinuated there was an issue with him replying.  Do you understand? Your initial comment had nothing to do with my original post.... it was criticism of YOUR projection... some nonsensical idea that I insinuated there was an issue with his response in general, and not the content of his response. Your lengthy post much after the fact doesn't justify your first post, in which you were trolling. So if you want to now go out of your way to tell Fran and IMDb staff that you weren't trolling me, and that my accusation is baseless because my edit was incorrect.... I'm sorry, but that's irrational. I don't know why you would criticize me after you trolled me, especially if you knew I wouldn't read it. You can say "Oh I wrote that for you and IMDb and Fran" if you want, but again.... IMDb and Fran don't need you to tell them how to do their job. If you seek to represent IMDb on this board then you should act more professional. I already explained I am a new user... the idea that I can't handle the heat and should get out of the kitchen..... maybe you should just get rid of the chip on your shoulder and not talk to me in a hostile manner because you don't like my edits, or because you don't like that I didn't stop responding when the first guy refused to answer my questions. Seriously, lose the ego next time you respond to someone asking for help. Then you won't have to try and justify yourself to the experts.

@keyword_expert​ One more thing.... "based on your prior contributions to this message board".... it is obvious you are trying to place yourself on a pedestal simply because you have posted more comments on this message board than I have. If that is the case, I would think you would be interested in HELPING new users understand their errors without needing to bait them into petty arguments first. Again, all you had to do was respond to my initial questions with candor.... with some semblance of professionality. I mean, you are the self-proclaimed EXPERT here, are you not? What expert talks down to the people that they think they are helping? What is your purpose on this board when you respond to someone asking a question? Do you intend to help them BEFORE you pat yourself on the back?? If so then your approach to this issue was a FAILURE.

@Fran​ Thank you very much for the assistance Fran! Here is the reference number: 220909-120125-415101. I look forward to your response!

@Fran​ Based on the points I have made in this thread, I would like to request that IMDb staff please stand by its prior determination to reject this attempted rewrite of another author's plot summary. The attempted rewrite would result in factual and grammatical errors and would tarnish the work of a named author on IMDb. 

@keyword_expert​ I don't think you realize the purpose of this thread keyword expert. I asked why my submission was denied. I didn't ask IMDb to change its decision. This is not an argument between me and IMDb... it is simply me asking what contribution guideline I broke when I made my edit. If it is due to factual and grammatical errors, then I am sure that Fran will represent IMDb gracefully with their response. They do not need you to guide them towards a decision.  Again, I ask that in the future you please refrain from trolling new users when they ask questions, and instead assist those users with understanding their errors in a less egotistical manner.

Hello SirDredwick, Upon checking the submission, we consider the live item is well formatted, as per the policy **Do not substantively change summaries if you disagree with them - instead please submit a new one with your own byline**. I encourage you to submit your own plot summary for the title, up to five summaries per title may be kept. 

@Fran​ I understand completely. Thank you for your assistance Fran, I very much appreciate it!