User talk:Quartertoten

Ourselves Alone
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ourselves Alone, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.digitalfilmarchive.net/dfa/browseDisplay.asp?id=126. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ourselves Alone is historically important in Ulster/Ireland and is one of early that Brian Desmond Hurst directed. There was no wikipedia entry on the movie and in creating a short overview of the movie the above website entry was accurate and useful and an extract would have served the entry well. Notwithstanding this an alternative brief summary has been presented to serve as a starting point. (Quartertoten (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC))

Brian Desmond Hurst
Please explain your disapproval of my more coventional citation format and why "Producer William MacQuitty produced a film" is better than "Producer William MacQuitty created a film"? Philip Cross (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Oversight on my part as I liked your additions and have restored these together with an additional comment on TY's early link on BDH movies (this latter comment seems to fit in the section about mentoring) (Quartertoten (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC))

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:TITG FrontCover LoRes.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:TITG FrontCover LoRes.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC) REPLY 26 October many Thanks for the feedback and help. I have copyright clearance and will provide the information as you have helpfully suggested.

File permission problem with File:TITG FrontCover LoRes.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:TITG FrontCover LoRes.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ron h jones (Talk) 18:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ronhjones and I am adding this and hope this is sufficient.

Article          = Brian Desmond Hurst The ticket number on the email to wiki permissions is 2018110710004143.
 * Description      = Book cover of Theis is the Glory. Arnhem Hurst and Conflict on Film.
 * Source           = Derived from a digital capture (photo/scan) of the book cover (creator of this digital version is irrelevant as the copyright in all equivalent images is still held by the same party). Copyright held by the author Allan Esler Smith who allows fair use in this context. The original publication was at www.briandesmondhurst.org see book tab.
 * Portion          = Book cover only, a small portion of the commercial product.
 * Low resolution   = Yes
 * Purpose          = The image serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject and Hurst and conflict on film. It illustrates the book about this core subject.
 * Replaceability   = There is no free equivalent of this book cover, so the image cannot be replaced by a free image.
 * Other information = The use of the cover will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original. In particular, copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the book.

Original research
Please stop edit warring to insert your own personal opinions in Brian Desmond Hurst. If you want to describe someone's career, you must quote a reliable source, such as a professional film critic or scholar. You can't post your own analysis of someone's work. On Wikipedia, we call this original research, and it is forbidden. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019
Your recent editing history at Brian Desmond Hurst shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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:. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, referring to edits made it good faith as "vandalism" may be considered to be a personal attack - see Avoid the word "vandal". Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The information is properly referenced and important to the context. Unfortunately some users feel able to just delete sections without comment (and then edit war in the hope their deletion prevails)and this approach without logic or explanation could be considered a form of vandalism but I understand what you are seeking to say. Hopefully referenced and important context can be allowed to remain and random deletions without comment or with poorly cited reasons or opinion will reduce and thanks to all editors who support this approachQuartertoten (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019
Your recent editing history at Brian Desmond Hurst shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dcfc1988 (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The information is properly referenced and important to the context. Unfortunately some users feel able to just delete sections without comment (and then edit war in the hope their deletion prevails)and this approach without logic or explanation could be considered a form of vandalism. The issue has been highlighted in the talk section of this page and i would urge deleters to talk and not just deletete and use informed comment to correct any matters that they believe are factually incorrect. I stand over all of the facts in the stated section which must remain and random recurring deletions without comment or with poor opinion will reduce.Quartertoten (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this alert and the point made and my response is detailed below:Quartertoten (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Quartertoten has been edit warring on these articles for a little while now. After he got blocked for breaking 3RR, he slowed down enough that he's only making at most two reverts per day. This is still disruptive. There's been discussion on one of the talk pages, and a few of us have expressed opposition to what we see as original research. Quartertoten doesn't see things that way and has accused us of vandalism. He's been warned before about calling other editors vandals. I'd like an uninvolved admin to look this over and decide if another block is necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Very disappointing to find this entry about myself. I have been editing pages for 10 years and have never encountered this sort approach that some users employ to supress information that is important context on an entry. Unfortunately a small number of users over a number months have suddenly entered the pages referred to above and deleted a large section opinionated commentary and/or vague assertions. Some users were more helpful and in response the section in question has been rechecked and is factually correct. Furthermore some additional source material has been added by me in the hope that this recurring deletion will stop and I repeatedly urge users to contribute, with precision, any factual errors (which I will review and correct, if appropriate)to the talk pages and allow the section to be developed. The conduct of some users is very sad to see and Hurst deserves better. The point about vandalism is interesting but poorly positioned above as I have not called any user a vandal (so the point above is incorrect) however I have suggested that the act of deleting a large section on a wiki page without any substantive comment or without first using the talk pages (as I repeatedly urge) is effectively vandalism as it goes against the spirit of wiki. I too would like to involve an admin as the section is relevant, factual, sourced and vital to the context of the life of Hurst and should remain and evolve via discussion on the talk pages and the recurring deletion should stop. I am prepared to devote whatever time and hours is necessary to evolve this section using factually correct information to ensure that the entry on Hurst is correct. Thank you to any users who take the time to read this positioning and attempt to rebalance the previous point above.Quartertoten (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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:. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Since the last block, you have persistently continued to try to edit war in the content against consensus. This is not acceptable. What you should be doing is discussing on the talk page, and you should consider dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the horse carcass. When this block expires, if you continue to repeatedly reinsert the content - without garnering a consensus for your changes - you will likely be blocked indefinitely. However, if you agree to stop reinserting the content - or anything similar to it - you may be unblocked (although if the behaviour reoccurs then you will be reblocked). Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Galobtter If you review the talk pages you will see the use of the talk pages and that I 'talk' and how the relevant section was significantly edited down and developed. Two users took exception and resorted to emotional language; belittling attempts and then trying to get others to just delete a whole section on this page- I think you regular users have a word for this sort of tactic- is it 'hounding'?. One of these editors had particular recurring warnings and bans for disruptive editing on their talk pages and then, suddenly, another editor appeared who had only joined wiki a few days ago joined in. I really would have preferred if you had reviewed the talk pages first. Finally, who requested you to invoke please- I'd be most interested.Many thanksQuartertoten (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify: I can see that you are discussing the issue on the talk page, but just because you are doing that doesn't mean you should be persistently edit warring against numerous users on the article. I don't precisely understand your last sentence, but: I have Hurst's page on my watchlist and noticed you had continued the edit warring today. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Galobtter Well there you go i suppose i see how this works. Two users - one with particularly bad editing history pick on this page and hound an editor who is bringing an important part of Hurst's life and filmography into better focus. It can drop i suppose and overall the page is cleaner and has less opinion. For now there is a positive and I've learnt about 'hounding'.If you get a chance to have a look at the two hounds talk pages- they will be easy to spot- both make entertaining reading (if that's the right phrase- I just pity the other editors they've focused on) all interesting reading. Good luck with what you do.Quartertoten (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of A Call for Arms


The article A Call for Arms has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non notable film with no independent, verifiable reviews."

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)