User talk:Saod053

Are you a fan of Sarah Michelle Gellar? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, never caught my attention, among my favorite actresses include Kate Winslet, Cate Blanchett, Marion Cotillard, Naomi Watts and Renée Zellweger. Because the question?. Greetings. Saod053 (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondered. Your editing reminds me of someone else's. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but because I reminded her of someone editing?. Greetings. Saod053 (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Winslet

Long in the infobox is even more reason to keep it there. I think the other image is of significantly lesser quality and usefulness. It's very poorly composed and there is more black background than anything else. Rossrs (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop dickering with this article. Your change of the image is not agreeable to other editors, removing the marriage template makes no sense and you apparently don't understand that placed dashes are the same thing as the template, which removes consistency within the article. This article has been thoroughly worked and brought to quality standard. It was nominated for good article status just last night. Your edits do not help or promote the quality of this article. You've been here four days, please take time to familiarize yourself with basic concepts before plunging in head first. Again, please stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, take this into account, but the template of marriage not only be placed in this article, is for everyone. Saod053 (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is for everyone, so why did you remove it twice? It is consistent with the use of templates in the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Adams

I'm sorry it cost you time and editing, but please stop going into good articles and start editing. You've not been here long enough to know the actual work that has already gone into articles like this and your edits are not progressive. I spent a great deal of time updating the filmography table to the present format used and added in the awards confirmed for Adams. You undid the formatting of the table for some reason. Since you did all of the additions in one huge edit, it isn't possible to sort out what edits might be considered valid and what is not. From the start of the article, you added the marriage template, which is not valid for a domestic partnership, you changed and added section titles with no support from article editors who worked this up to the good article status, you changed corrections to formatting for short films, I have no clue what you've done to the listings in the table, but one time minor appearances in some TV shows are no reason to disrupt it this way. I am right, take it to the talk page and stop reverting me. I reverted for a reason, not just because I want to do so. Take it to the article talk page. Period. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has everything to do with you being a new editor of only 6 days and charging in to make major edits to good articles. That is a status that takes far too much work to not check the edits and revert them if they do not appear progressive or helpful. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The awards page is valid content and presented in a different way. Please do not redirect the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The awards page is valid content and presented in a different way. Please do not redirect the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Amy Adams, you will be blocked from editing. You've been told to take it to the talk page. If you can't comply with that request, then please stop piddling with this article, as you've been asked. JUST STOP. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by MuZemike 00:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Blocked as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by MuZemike 00:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.