User talk:Tertulius

Welcome!

Hello, Tertulius, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Cunard (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of José de Matos-Cruz

The article José de Matos-Cruz has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Fair ☯ talk 02:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quad (cinema)

Thank you for your message. I have responded at Talk:Quad (cinema).--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your articles need to be clarified

I have described problems with your Docufiction and Ethnofiction articles at Talk:Docufiction and at Talk:Ethnofiction. Your use of English is unusual and unclear. Could you please have a look and see if you can re-write the sentences identified, please? The Engllish is not only strange, it is very academic and obscure to the ordinary reader, and others have commented on the difficulty. It might be helpful to read WP:Technical. Thank you. — O'Dea (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Drifts

The article Drifts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Future film with no secondary coverage, does not meet WP:NFF

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BOVINEBOY2008 03:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reasons invoked for the article deletion are not reasonable and the “rules” mentioned contradict the existence of a considerable number of published film articles gathered in the Category:Upcoming films. Applying these “rules” in a non arbitrary way means the need of deleting most of those articles.
  • The article has been published in three languages almost one year ago: English, French and Portuguese. Why deleting it in English now? The number of visitors consulting the article proves its interest and notability. Besides, Drifts is the second film of a trilogy and this fact helps to explain the first, Mists. Why removing pertinent and useful information from Wikipedia? Isn’t that worse than keeping it? What is there in this article that may affect the encyclopedia credibility?

Nomination of Drifts for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Drifts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drifts until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BOVINEBOY2008 22:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTABILITY?
How can upcoming films satisfy criteria of notability? It is ABSURD and a NONESENSE insisting with such an argument to delete an article about a non released film, since it has not yet been commented. There are HUNDRED of such articles published at the Wikipedia. Stubbornness? If not, how can one argue it is no notable film? Is a personal opinion enough reason to delete an article? How can this be accepted?
User talk:Tertulius 01:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Drifts (Portuguese film)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Drifts (Portuguese film). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Drifts. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Drifts – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Whpq (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of this article was in very poor form; you were attempting to avoid what was even then the clear outcome of the deletion discussion. Wikipedia is a collaborative project based on a set of rules. There was a consensus that that film does not yet (note: it may in the future) meet our notability guidelines. You can't just avoid that consensus by recreating the page under a different name. Should you do such a thing again, you will be blocked for disruptive editing.
If the film does garner detailed coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources in the future, feel free to let me know, and I will place a copy of the article into a sandbox in your userspace for you to work on. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Faraways

The article Faraways has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable film. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Derivas

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Derivas, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. BOVINEBOY2008 19:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article, which someone submitted to deletion as Drifts, was redirected to Drift disambiguation page, due to its English title, and there it is appears:
Drifts, an unreleased film directed by Ricardo Costa
The article was not deleted. Nobody voted for deletion but for redirection, the result being the same, as the article vanished.
This is a tricky and unfair procedure.
The article should be kept under its original title.
Tertulius 20:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The redirection has absolutely nothing to do with the movie--it's because every plural should be redirect to its singular (Apples is a redirect to Apple for example). Since you are again trying to get around the community consensus by recreating the article which was properly deleted, I have no choice but to block you. YOu need to understand: this film cannot have an article until it receives coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for disruptively recreating a page deleted via AfD under multiple different titles. The community consensus is that that subject is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, though others have noted that that could change in the future. Until it changes, though, your recreations are a blatant attempt to defy the community consensus, and must be stopped. If you resume this behavior after the block is over, the next block will be indefinite. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

I have seen your comments to various Admins concerning my behavior. Specifically, "This sequence of interventions is clearly a personal attack by User:reddogsix, supported by two or three user friend. It has no other explanation. It contributes in nothing to improve articles quality."

I would suggest you read the articles WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF and rethink your comments. There is nothing in my actions that resemble a personal attack or a specific action directed to you. Your insistence that I am attacking you is ridiculous, without merit, and is contrary to the standards of the Wikipedia community.

I would suggest you read WP:DR and follow the process outlined in the that article. If, after reading the article and following the process you feel the issues still exist you might consider using WP:DRN to resolve the issue.

If you wish for a copy of the article, you can request it be sent to you from any Admin. If you wish to appeal the AfD article deletion then I suggest you read WP:DP and WP:RECREATE. reddogsix (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would also advise not picking up right where you left off immediately after your block expired. It might have been beneficial if you had used that time to think about working on something else and cooling off a little bit. That having been said, I can provide you a copy of the article if you would like, or you can follow the deletion review process that reddogsix mentioned. We have policies, guidelines, and processes for content on Wikipedia and the deletion process of the article you wrote was followed. I understand that you may feel some sort of injustice was done, but none of what has taken place regarding the deletion or the block was personal and I advise you to not take things personally here. It's a website. Keegan (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're likely to get a host of comments in response to your posts, but let me address the one of article content; Wikipedia's articles are expected to rely primarily on reliable, independent secondary sources. Articles about unreleased films are regularly deleted or redirected until that threshold of significant outside commentary is reached. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but the opposite to what you say is patent with ALL film listed in upcoming films. This CONTRADICTION is a serious issue and that should be resolved. That’s what I have been defending: it is unfair and a nonsense deleting a few unsourced films and keeping MANY others. Tertulius (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Just because other articles exist does not many that any particular article should. In deletion discussions editors focus solely on the merits of the presented article. Comparison to other articles does not matter at all. If it did and we weighed merits of content with other content the entire process would grind to a halt. I'm sorry if you don't agree, but that is how we do things. Keegan (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean to ridicule you, but let's be clear - this is a website entry. Serious is the doctor telling someone they have a black spot on their X-Rays, impending loss of freedom, or other such major changes to one's life. If you feel the rule is being applied without consistency you are welcome identify the inconsistency and nominate the article for deletion; however, I would caution you to be careful that you fully understand the issues at hand and fully understand the specifics of notability as applied to films. My best to you. reddogsix (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You insist on the same point, giving the same answer, which is obvious but inconsequent. No single word has been uttered concerning the unsolved CONTRADITION of two justified needs: applying strict criteria of notability and listing upcoming films. This is no minor problem, which has been silenced.

Guerrilla filmmaking

Hi there. I noticed that you're bulk adding unsourced descriptions in articles about guerrilla films. I think you should stop doing this and get consensus for this change at WT:FILM. For one thing, what evidence do you have that all these films were made that way? You should cite a reliable source that identifies these films as such. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Clark: A Gonzomentary. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Cirt (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Onan (film). — Cirt (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for disruptively and persistently adding unsourced material. If you resume this behaviour after the block is over, the next block will be indefinite. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tertulius (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The article was reverted to a stub when I had widely expanded it with relevant matters and added over 90 links to trustful sources.

Decline reason:

That unblock request totally fails to address the reason for the block, which was persistently adding unsourced claims to many articles, taking no notice of messages. Also, in view of your recent posting of the same message to the talk pages of 16 administrators, I suggest you read WP:ADMINSHOP. The editor who uses the pseuddonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

FACTS:
1 – I expanded Guerrilla filmmaking page with vast information that improved its quality. I added unquestionable credible references to the article including links to numerous NY Times articles and reviews such as by qualified scholars from several universities. Over 90 references were made.
2 – The article was reverted to a poor old stub having just one reference. The argument used to reversal was lack of references in the expanded article. I was accused of abuse and blocked for 15 days.
3 – No other reason was given to the reversal or to the blocking.
Great!
EVIDENCE:
Typical example of hobby subcultures practiced in many cases with disastrous consequences by an increasing number of Wikipedians having a low cultural level. See article.
Tertulius (User talk:Tertulius) 20,24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Answer improved - Tertulius (User talk:Tertulius) 22h,40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Guerrilla filmmaking

It is only by chance I noticed you added a comment to my user page regarding the article Guerrilla filmmaking. You should edit user's talk pages, not their user pages for topics of discussion. I see no need as of yet for you to appeal to me (or anybody else) as an administrator for action. Your edits were reverted and only one time. Discuss it on the article's talk page before seeking dispute resolution. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Remember that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit... that includes you but it also includes other people. I have had interactions with User:Cirt in the past and I recall him/her to be an eminently reasonable editor. As your edits were rather extensive, a "divide and conquer" approach to discussion may be useful. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Work OUT of article space...

I checked with Cirt and he thought this was decent option which would allow you to address the article's issues which caused him to revert you in the first place. So what I have done is copy an earlier (pre-Cirt's revert) version of the article to a user draftspace for you. Find it at User:Tertulius/sandbox/Guerrilla filmmaking. Please double-check what WP:RS tells us, and do not use as citations any source not accepted as reliable... specially when dealing with WP:BLP issues. Keep the article tone neutral. Do not make nor offer any conclusion not already stated in and supported by proper sources. Please ensure that all facts in the article are verifiable in reliable sources. Keep in mind that an encyclopedic article does not simply list and describe examples... it informs through use of reliable sources, just what constitutes a guerrilla film and why. When you feel the draft might be acceptable, ask an editor such as Cirt to take a look to double-check. He's a fine editor, and will likely be supportive of any proper addition to Wikipedia. Good luck. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Smith,
I’ll do nothing unless reversal to the stub version is undone. I took a lot of time to expand the article and have no more to rewrite it, besides honestly thinking the article quality was considerable improved and needs no important correction. This should be the point for anyone who decides to interfere with positive action and respect.
My best,
Tertulius (User talk:Tertulius) 13h,38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Robert Kramer. — Cirt (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You've been blocked for 6-moths on sucipcion of copyright infringement based on additions you've made to the Guerrilla filmmaking page. As a result of these addition, all of your contributions are now suspect and will be reported for copyright review. If you wish to challenge these claims, or to request unblocking, you may do so on this page. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Guerrilla filmmaking, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from https://m.facebook.com/Guerillawerkz?v=info&expand=1&nearby, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Guerrilla filmmaking saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Guerrilla filmmaking, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://onthesetofnewyork.com/01102012.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Guerrilla filmmaking saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Guerrilla filmmaking, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.amazon.com/Cinema-Outsiders-Rise-American-Independent/dp/0814751245, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Guerrilla filmmaking saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NEW REVERSAL TO STUB

16 minutes after a new improved version of Guerrilla filmmaking was edited, another reversal to stub was made by user Cirt.

Revenge and threats are recurring practices of this user, who is not alone, regardless of the destructive consequences to Wikipedia whenever relevant information is destroyed with unproved and false arguments.

Tertulius (User talk:Tertulius) 05h,28, 01 December 2014 (UTC)


TomStar81 (Talk) 05:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HI Tom,
You have certainly violated Dickens’s author rights coping this sentence!
Be careful, someone or another Wiki administrator may block you…
Cheers,
Tertulius (User talk:Tertulius) 06h,10, 01 December 2014 (UTC)
You're not going to get anywhere with that attitude. Since you refuse to talk to Cirt, I'll make an attempt. English Wikipedia has rather strict rules about verifiability, original research, and reliable sources. They may be different than the policies you are familiar with on other wikis, and I recommend you read through them. Here is why your edits have been reverted:
  • Many of the sources that you cited are not reliable. The IMDB, for example, is specifically called out as not reliable by WikiProject Film. Reliable sources must have an editorial department, a history of fact-checking, and correct mistakes that they have published. Most sites will have an "about us" page where you can find out if they satisfy these requirements. User generated content, such as the IMDB, is not allowed. A decent rule of thumb is that you should stick to articles written by academics or professional journalists. There are exceptions, of course. WP:RSN is a good place to discuss reliable sources.
  • You must avoid original research. That means that you can't insert your own opinions. You may only summarize what reliable sources have already said. If you can't find a source that says what you want to add to the article, you should not add that text. If you can't find a reliable source that specifically labels a film as a guerrilla film, then it too should not be discussed on this page. It may be obvious to you, but your opinions are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia; instead, write a blog. It is well and good to quote from reliable sources, such as The New York Times, but if they do not mention the phrase "guerrilla film" anywhere in their article, it should not be used as a citation for this article.
  • Even if the source is reliable and specifically mentions guerrilla filmmaking, you have not cleared every hurdle. Not everything that reliable sources say should be put in the article. Conciseness, readability, and due weight are all concerns that should be considered before you add a large amount of text. Wikipedia articles should be scholarly, not gigantic lists of examples that consist of promotional language. Although this is common for other wikis, such as TV Tropes, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia.
  • Your additions must properly paraphrase the sources that you cite. This means that you can't just copy-paste text into Wikipedia; you must use your own words. If you attribute the text, you can quote briefly from it. Guidance is available at MOS:QUOTE and WP:QUOTE. Generally, I would suggest that you quote only what is necessary; frequently, an adjective phrase is enough. English Wikipedia generally follows American copyright law, so you may have to spend a little time familiarizing yourself with that. Fair use is the most important aspect, and it is what allows us to quote small portions of copyrighted text (with attribution, of course).
  • You can't edit war your changes into an article. If your edits are reverted, you should then discuss them on the talk page and work out an amicable solution.
If you indicate that you're willing to follow these policies, you will probably be unblocked and allowed to improve the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BLOCKED FOR SEVEN MONTHS
since 01 December 2014
REASON: violation of author rights using referenced citations to reliable sources with quotation marks.
DECISION: Consensus among a quite small group of cranky fellows using and abusing of Wikipedia tools deployed as instruments of torture.

Tertulius (User talk:Tertulius) 05h,32, 02 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Calm down. You are blocked for such a long period of time because we need you not contributing so we can over your contributions to make sure what you've added isn't in violation of any policies or guidelines. If it turns out I'm wrong about this then I'll be the first to apologize and the first to unblock you. Immediately after that, you can lobby for my recall from the admin circle on grounds of gross negligence, and then go back to what you were doing before all this unpleasantness occurred. In the mean time though, you'll need to exercise patience. Its aggravating, I agree, but this is how things are done. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t dare commenting or even reading NinjaRobotPirate post. He is «here to loot, pillage, kill» and etc… (Quoting User:NinjaRobotPirate page).
Tertulius (User talk:Tertulius) 11h,48, 02 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Daniel E. Thorbecke for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel E. Thorbecke is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel E. Thorbecke until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as António de Macedo, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://booksllc.net/sw2.cfm?q=Ant%C3%B3nio_de_Macedo, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:António de Macedo saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! TomStar81 (Talk) 14:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I stand correct on this one, as it appears that the site copied from Wikipedia, not vis-versa. In this case the, I accept my fault for the message and formally apologize for being overly hasty to cry copyright. I offer no excuse, and will try to exercise more discretion as I go through your editorial history. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FOUR QUOTES

QUOTE 1 - «(…) Wikipedia and its stated ambition to “compile the sum of all human knowledge” are in trouble. The volunteer workforce that built the project’s flagship, the English-language Wikipedia – and must defend it against vandalism, hoaxes, and manipulation – has shrunk by more than a third since 2007 and is still shrinking.»

QUOTE 2 - «The number of active editors on the English-language Wikipedia peaked in 2007 at more than 51,000 and has been declining ever since as the supply of new ones got choked off. This past summer only 31,000 people could be considered active editors.»

QUOTE 3 - «When asked to identify Wikipedia’s real problem, Moran cites the bureaucratic culture that has formed around the rules and guidelines on contributing, which have become labyrinthine over the years. The page explaining a policy called Neutral Point of View, one of “five pillars” fundamental to Wikipedia, is almost 5,000 words long. “That is the real barrier: policy creep,” he says.»

QUOTE 4 - «Today’s Wikipedia, even with its middling quality and poor representation of the world’s diversity, could be the best encyclopedia we will get.»

QUOTES FROM The Decline of Wikipedia – Article by Tom Simonite, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, October 22, 2013

Tertulius (User talk:Tertulius) 11h, 54, 02 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year !!!
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Peter Landrock

Hello Tertulius I created a page about the Danish cryptographer Peter Landrock under: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peter_Landrock Landrock was doctoral student of Richard Brauer, and I saw you did some work on Brauer's page. I would appreciate if you could have a look at Peter Landrock's draft page. I will still add some final touches and references (e.g., on his awards), but the main page is ready. Would you have some suggestions on modifications or additional information for this page? A short comment on the draft page's talk section would be very much appreciated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Peter_Landrock

Thx --ScienceGuard (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Left Bloc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Participation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Docufiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Real time. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Docufiction
added a link pointing to Miguel Gomes
Illustration
added a link pointing to Cinema
List of docufiction films
added a link pointing to Miguel Gomes

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sync sound, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages DC and Independent cinema. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mockumentary, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hybrid and Colin McKenzie. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiclaus' cheer !

Wikiclaus greetings
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you the happiest of Wikipedia Wikiclaus' good cheer.
This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages we all spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus !

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ricardo Costa (filmmaker), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Salazar and Vision. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Drifts (film)

The article Drifts (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable film, no secondary coverage, per WP:NF

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BOVINEBOY2008 16:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The film had its national première on 15 January 2016 as referred at ‘Production’
A missing source has just been introduced as reference.
Please analyse contents before commenting on notability.
Tertulius (talk) 23h:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I did. The source you added is a blog which is not considered a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines: WP:RS. Please find independent, secondary coverage to support the article. I am not opposed to keeping the article if they exist, but I cannot find anything. BOVINEBOY2008 12:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Drifts (film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Drifts (film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drifts (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BOVINEBOY2008 02:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Drifts (film). Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Tertulius. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wikiomni.com

I am not sure whether it is you or others that are referencing user pages at wikiomni.com. I don't believe that it is a reliable or credible source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Tertulius. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Docufiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Purity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Docufiction shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]