User talk:XxTaylor15

Hello, XxTaylor15, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jodie Foster

You seem to make nearly all your edits on this article, making you a single purpose account and removing the most recent image that is freely available. That is not acceptable, we are compelled to use a recent image. The one you added is 20 years old, Foster has aged and will never look like she did at 26 again. If you don't like the most recent image, then please go find a newer one that is also free-use. Don't continue your efforts to use an old photo, it will be reverted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just short and sweet, this edit summary you made is a lie. If you will not raise issues on the talk page and persist in making contentious edits and statements, you will be blocked. I'd suggest you find more articles to edit and stop your obsession on the images on this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jodie Foster

You've been told before about this article. A single purpose account contribution is always scrutinized more carefully because of the singular focus of the editor. You are chopping up the article as it existed and sticking things in entirely out of chronology. You moved Nim's Island into a secton preceeding "Current projects" and left as the only current project a shelved film. You're using POV commentary, such as Silence of the Lambs being her breakthrough role, when she'd just won an Oscar for another film, which was also a hit. Finally, you're adding POV commentary about her being "one of the few child stars" whose career carried over into adulthood. That's just not true, there are many other child stars who made the transition. This is uncited POV. Finally, you've taken up your crusade to get rid of the current most-recent free image of Foster in the infobox so what? Your bad digital camera photo can be put back in. That is inappropriate. Please stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jodie Foster. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jodie Foster. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Anastrophe (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the talk page to discuss these changes. continued reversions will succeed in getting you blocked from editing. Anastrophe (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Jodie Foster. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I only have a few comments on your edits to Jodie Foster. Regarding the "yearsactive" parameter in the infobox, the instructions for that space are: "Insert the years that the person was active in his/her career. Use the format: year of professional debut–year of final professional appearance. If still active, use "present" in place of the end year." The beginning year isn't based on the first credit the person received, but the first year in which they appeared professionally. If someone first appeared in commercials at age 3, presumbably being paid to appear, that is the professional debut. However, please don't insert notes into infoboxes saying "don't change" unless there is a consensus driven decision about some factor that is in contention despite being within the guidelines.

There is a specific format for inserting references that goes well beyond sticking the weblink between the ref tags. You can find instructions for how to properly format references at WP:REFB. Punctuation always is placed before references, not after them. It's also preferable to wikilink awards mentioned within the main article body to the specific article for that award, not just the main page. One last mention - most editors who work on featured and good articles agree that we would really prefer that the word "also" was never coined. It unintentionally, but quickly, becomes too repetitive. Most will only ever use it when it is absolutely necessary. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning

She looks horrible in the pictures on this site, ESPECIALLY the one under "personal life" of her making that weird face. Can't anyone upload a flattering photo of her? You have crossed the line from posting your personal dislike for a photo into spamming the talk page about it. Your personal crusade to remove a picture because you don't like it has become tiresome and ridiculous. If you can't move on to something more constructive than lobbying against a photo that replaced the horrible, blurry and odd photo that you uploaded, then steps will be taken to stop you. Your posts have become disruptive and if you can't contain yourself, you may find yourself blocked for disruption. Find something else to do with your time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Excuseme99. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]