User talk:Vanished user 210iu3nr

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Marisa Tomei has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.  Tide  rolls  06:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Natalie Wood – 1
A couple of months ago, you asked me for help regarding images to use in the Natalie Wood article, and I tried to help and explain copyright policies to you, or at least point you in the right direction. I don't know whether you misunderstand, or whether you've decided to ignore policies, but either way, it's not helpful to continue uploading a stream of images and calling them all free. You're not offering any evidence to support that. The previous image was from a lobby card, not the trailer, and this one isn't from the trailer either. Where did you get it? It seems that you just don't like the existing image. You know what? Neither do I, but that does not mean we can allow another image to be uploaded in its place and vaguely say "it is free". That isn't good enough. Your points about the article have been discussed at the talk page and you've been given a hearing. I, and other editors, have given reasons for the text to be presented in a certain manner, and there is a WP:CONSENSUS regarding those points. You do not have the right to override that simply because you personally don't agree with it. It is also very dishonest to use an edit summary that says you are changing the image, when in fact, you are changing a huge swathe of text as well. You are even changing text that you conceded earlier was not the best way of writing eg Wood was with Walken and Wagner when she drowned. Just copy and pasting and reverting a previous version is not the way to go, because it changes everything - the good and the bad. You seem to be fixed on this version of text for this article. You do not seem to edit many articles here. Perhaps you should. If you contributed to a range of articles you may get a better feel for how things work here, but you can't just keep reverting other editors after the issue has already been discussed. You had your say, you were listened to, and consensus was to do something different. Rossrs (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Also this edit. Do not ever remove or change a comment I have made on a talk page. Do not ever remove or change a comment made by another editor on a talk page. Why would you think you are right to do so? Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the question is - how IS it free?  I don't have to prove it's not free.  You have to prove that it is.  Rossrs (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. ''Do not ever remove a comment I have made on an article talk page again, as you did this one. If I discover any edit where you have removed mine, or anyone else's, posting from an article talk page, I shall take the matter to WP:AN/I and request your immediate blocking. This is absolutely unacceptable behavior in a myriad of bad faith editing that has to stop. I've reached my tolerance level with such actions, your POV editing, your choice to ignore editor consensus and refusal to work cooperatively with others. It's time to stop. Period. '' Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're are tendentiously editing this article, and hiding a lot of things behind a misleading edit summary, against consensus, points which I've already brought to your attention more than once. Also, things like Hollywood teens.com, You Tube, National Enquirer - do not come even close to meeting the required standard of sourcing per WP:RS.  Please, just leave the article alone.  I've tried to help you and tried to assume good faith with you, but since I noticed you change my comment, and another editor's comment on the talk page, that's changed.  I don't understand why you are adopting this stance.   The WP:BLP issue is crucial and it overrides your desire or my desire to say whatever we want.   It's not negotiable and it doesn't go away just because you find a site that has previously published the same rumor and innuendo.  It's one of the most important policies Wikipedia has.  Rossrs (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * IMDb is not considered a reliable source.  Aside from basic data such as filmographies, the information is contributed by users.   The level of fact checking is not known, so is assume to be dubious.   Again, because we err on the side of caution.   It's not good enough that it may be true. Rossrs (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:NatalieWood.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:NatalieWood.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Jodie Foster article
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  08:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. If you would like to discuss your edits, then please go to the Jodie Foster Talk page and open a new section.  Feel free to join an existing conversation with editors who are also involved in improvement of the Jodie Foster article.

Unreferenced claims/information
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Using unreliable source to reveal personal information about a living person violates WP:HARM and constitutes vandalism. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  00:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Natalie Wood – 2
Please be aware that there is not a conceivable situation under which a sub-section called "As a beard" would ever be validly included in a biography in an encyclopedia. It is a colloquialism that has a negative connotation, that she went on dates with gay actors may be something that happened, but by sectioning it out under such a title puts an unsupportable weight on what may better be viewed as not having have an issue with having gay male friends. In any case, it's inappropriate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Try to grasp that your changes on this article do not have the consensus of other editors on the page. It is time for you to stop using deceptive edit summaries in order to hide far more extensive changes than what you indicate with them. This summary would lead the observer to think you've only changed a section title when in fact you've reverted the sections back to the version which has been overruled by the other editors multiple times. You do not have consensus to continue to shove in these changes. Please make an effort to learn how to properly go about making changes when your edits have drawn objections. The proper avenue would be to propose changes in a smaller fashion and allow time for discussion regarding them. If your edits have drawn objection, there is nothing productive in just sticking them back and reverting over and over. If you cannot work in a collaborative manner with other editors, may I suggest that perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you. Also, if you cannot work collaboratively, you are going to find yourself being taken to WP:AN/I because of the brusque and abrupt way you continue to revert. Stop pushing POV content and editing onto articles such as Natalie Wood. Nothing is being gained by your methods. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully concur with Wildhartlivie. Excuseme99, if you continue this manner of editing, which you have shown on numerous articles, you are heading straight for WP:ANI, which likely will be followed by blocks and even a permanent ban if you don't start respecting Wikipedia policies and other editors. Ward3001 (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A check of Excuseme99's contributions would seem to indicate a block is way past overdue.   .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.   04:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. A check of past usages of the "Excuseme__" username may also indicate we have a shapeshifter lurking?
 * That has been broached on this page before, but that gets removed routinely. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For the sake of Admin vetting, thank goodness it cannot be removed from the History.   .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.   11:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Madonna
here is you answer. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  21:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. — R  2  21:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Geena Davis
Please do not copy material from copyrighted websites as you did here. This is a copyright violation as has been removed. Rossrs (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Taylor
Your misleading edit summaries have been brought to your attention before. This summary is not only misleading but it contains a personal attack. This is not acceptable behaviour. Rossrs (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
Please do not attack other editors, which you did here. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You are running out of opportunities to work with others in something other than an adversarial and arbitrary way. This is the last warning you will receive prior to your being taken to WP:AN/I for your conduct. When that happens, I will be requesting a block on your ability to edit Wikipedia. This talk page is evidence enough that your behavior has become intolerable and this edit summary is merely representative of your general behavior. It is time to stop working against consensus, making arbitrary and unfounded changes and refusal to work with others rather than against them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You were told quite specifically at Talk:Natalie Wood that you cannot add material to Wikipedia implying or stating that Robert Wagner had any involvement in the death of Natalie Wood. If you attempt to add content like this again, as you did , you will be blocked from editing. This has gone on long enough, either stop the pursuit of inserting your POV or quietly stop editing before you are banned. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation
You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Excuseme99. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)