User talk:Juliano202

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Juliano202, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

CESNUR[edit]

Hi. I see you have added "The neutrality of this article is disputed" and "This article may contain improper references to self-published sources" notices to the CESNUR article. What you need to do now is explain on the talk page why you think there is a problem with neutrality, and which sources you believe to be improper and why. If you don't, those tags will most likely be removed again. Also, do you have any connection with CESNUR (or to Massimo Introvigne) yourself? For the record, I'm happy to tell you that I'd never heard of it (or him) myself until I saw it when I was patrolling recent edits made by new accounts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Introvigne[edit]

I have reverted your removal of references from Massimo Introvigne. Again, if a URL is not currently active, we should mark it as dead to allow some time for an archived version or an alternative to be found. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of the web sources were available at the Wayback machine, so I have updated them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop[edit]

Please stop your disruption at CESNUR, and please answer my question of whether you have any connection with the organization. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to do with this organization. I act in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia and will continue to operate. Juliano202 (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not acting in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia. Your removal of sources was wrong (a couple even already had the archive links attached), your tagging of the article without providing explanations on the talk page was wrong (and if you don't provide those explanation soon, I will remove the tags), your nomination for speedy deletion under WP:G11 was wrong, your claim on the talk page that it should be deleted per WP:A7 was wrong. This account was registered today, and you appear to have a determination to remove this article (or get it changed in some unspecified way), and you appear to have an unusually good knowledge of arcane Wikipedia policies for a newcomer (like the speedy deletion criteria). Have you edited before using any other accounts? You say you "have nothing to do with this organization", but you do appear to have a strong interest in it, so can you please explain that interest or tell us how you happened upon this article and the related Massimo Introvigne for your first and only actions on Wikipedia? (By the way, if you want the article deleted, you will need to use WP:AfD). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No![edit]

No, it's not WP:PROD, it's WP:AFD! WP:PROD is only for deletions that would be obviously uncontroversial (as it clearly explains), and this one clearly is controversial. Please read WP:AFD and follow the instructions there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to explain a bit further, unilateral deletion of this article is not possible, as it does not fall into any of the speedy deletion criteria (as explained at WP:CSD) and deletion would clearly not be uncontroversial (as explained at WP:PROD). What that means is that we need a discussion under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, in which editors can offer their assessments and a consensus can be reached (typically after 7 days). A number of editors regularly patrol the daily WP:AFD logs, and the discussion will possibly be linked to any related projects too so members of those can offer their opinions. When that discussion has concluded, an independent reviewer (that is, one who has not taken part in the discussion and has not worked on the article) will judge the consensus and will close the discussion - and if the consensus is to delete, an admin will do that. (I'm an admin, but I can not take any admin actions in relation to this article as I have now edited it myself.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion for detailed instructions on how to start a deletion discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaarggghhh![edit]

How many times do I have to tell you that you should use the WP:AFD process and NOT the WP:PROD process. Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

The section is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption at CESNUR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to article, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Aidayoung (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you first arrived here, it has been clear that you are on some sort of campaign against CESNUR and against Massimo Introvigne, you want to criticize and denigrate them rather than help us build articles in line with WP:NPOV, and you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being shills for the organization. Your attempt to have CESNUR deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CESNUR was the most blatant and most clueless of your efforts. It is time for you to stop now, so please take your agenda somewhere else, as it does not belong here on Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Juliano202, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]