User talk:Classic80

Comments
Please note that the nndb.com site is not a permissible reference or link to include. Any point where you have included must be removed. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding photographs
Please note that you cannot upload photos that you have not personally taken and claim that they belong to you. Can you please indicate the place where you found and ? Saying that it is part of your personal collection does not give you the copyright ownership. The first one appears to be a magazine scan and the second is dubious also. Also, please note, as I've stated twice, that you cannot insert into the article anything that suggests Wagner was responsible for her death. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because someone owns a copy of a magazine does not mean they own the copyright to the photo you uploaded. Anyone can claim that they own a photograph, but just saying that in an edit summary does not clear the copyright issue status of these photographs. Besides that, you've tried to insert that 1971 photograph using one of your other accounts, Excuseme99. Please desist from violating copyright status. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Natalie Wood. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Excuseme99 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to say in defense except this is untrue.Classic80 (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd advise you to respond. Banned sockmasters cannot edit here, as you already know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)