| Revision as of 04:34, 30 April 2014 editRing Cinema (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers6,691 edits →April 2014: perhaps you don't know how the policy on consensus works...?← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:01, 30 April 2014 edit undoTiptoety (talk | contribs)47,300 edits →April 2014: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
| ::What you are essentially talking about is ]. I'll note that this is '''not''' a policy, but an essay and clearly states it is not an exception to the edit warring policy. Simply saying, "I do not like the new edit, so I will continue to revert over and over to the status quo" is disruptive, goes against the concept of Misplaced Pages, and is blatant edit warring. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC) | ::What you are essentially talking about is ]. I'll note that this is '''not''' a policy, but an essay and clearly states it is not an exception to the edit warring policy. Simply saying, "I do not like the new edit, so I will continue to revert over and over to the status quo" is disruptive, goes against the concept of Misplaced Pages, and is blatant edit warring. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::Incorrect. Apparently you are unaware that making a change to an article requires a consensus, per WP:consensus. When there is not a consensus for change, there's discussion, not a change to the article. I was completely correct to return the article to the status quo before there was a dispute. That status quo had been in place for five years, so it was hardly controversial. Sorry to learn that you're unaware of how that part of the policy works, but now you've been told. And if you thought about it for a minute, it would be obvious that introducing new material should require a consensus, otherwise correct information could not be kept in an article -- as happened in this case. --] (]) 04:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC) | :::Incorrect. Apparently you are unaware that making a change to an article requires a consensus, per WP:consensus. When there is not a consensus for change, there's discussion, not a change to the article. I was completely correct to return the article to the status quo before there was a dispute. That status quo had been in place for five years, so it was hardly controversial. Sorry to learn that you're unaware of how that part of the policy works, but now you've been told. And if you thought about it for a minute, it would be obvious that introducing new material should require a consensus, otherwise correct information could not be kept in an article -- as happened in this case. --] (]) 04:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I'm not disagreeing with you that there does not appear to be consensus for the new edit. What I'm saying is that edit warring is not the appropriate response. As noted on ]: "''Repeated reversions are contrary to Misplaced Pages policy under WP:Edit warring''". ] <sup>]</sup> 12:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:01, 30 April 2014
| This is Ring Cinema's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
happy birthday transcript
Patty Hill's 1935 deposition Deposition De Bene Esse 7-8 in Hill v. Harris, No. E 78-350, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Examination of Miss Patty S. Hill by Mr. Malcolm B. Stark).
A. . . . while only the words “Good Morning to All” were put in the book we used it for “Good-bye to you”, “Happy Journey to You”, “Happy Christmas to You” and “Happy New Year to You”, Happy Vacation to You” and so forth and so on. Q. Did you also use the words “Happy Birthday to You”. A. We certainly did with every birthday celebration in the school. Q. Did you write the words for this particular tune of “Good Morning To All,” Miss Hill? A. I did. Q. Had you at that time also written many other verses in conjunction with the words which appear in the edition of “Song Stories for the Kindergarten”, published in 1893. A. Yes, we were writing them practically every day.150
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
The Godfather Part II
As per WP:MOSFILM, we include the gross of a film in the article's infobox, not the adjusted gross. If you have a reliable source that states the worldwide gross for this particular film, feel free to add it to the article, otherwise we can only include the domestic (North American) gross. Please familiarise yourself with WP:MOSFILM before you make further edits. Thank you. 88.104.22.45 (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- We don't use the domestic gross. That is where I differ with you. If you have a source with the international gross, please use it. Otherwise, the domestic gross adjusted is superior. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring
Your recent editing history at The Godfather Part II shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
For guidelines relating to this article in particular, please refer to WP:MOSFILM for clarification. L@zloFeelo 17:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- No edit war. I am following BRD and the other editor is trying to make the change. Please correct the record. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. L@zloFeelo 20:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
April 2014
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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. Tiptoety 18:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Ring Cinema (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I did not revert. I added the sourced international box office figure that was requested. Also, the status quo should be restored during discussion. Ring Cinema (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The history of the article shows plenty of reversions, and an unambiguous case of edit-warring on your part. Perhaps the status quo ante editum should be restored and perhaps it should not, but you don't edit-war to "enforce" it. The Bushranger One ping only 21:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
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.
- A false accusation. I was restoring the status quo while the discussion was ongoing. Sorry to see that so few admins appreciate that while content is under discussion, it's correct to return the article to the last previous consensus. That's what I did. You got it wrong, and I'd like you to recognize that. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- What you are essentially talking about is Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I'll note that this is not a policy, but an essay and clearly states it is not an exception to the edit warring policy. Simply saying, "I do not like the new edit, so I will continue to revert over and over to the status quo" is disruptive, goes against the concept of Misplaced Pages, and is blatant edit warring. Tiptoety 02:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect. Apparently you are unaware that making a change to an article requires a consensus, per WP:consensus. When there is not a consensus for change, there's discussion, not a change to the article. I was completely correct to return the article to the status quo before there was a dispute. That status quo had been in place for five years, so it was hardly controversial. Sorry to learn that you're unaware of how that part of the policy works, but now you've been told. And if you thought about it for a minute, it would be obvious that introducing new material should require a consensus, otherwise correct information could not be kept in an article -- as happened in this case. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not disagreeing with you that there does not appear to be consensus for the new edit. What I'm saying is that edit warring is not the appropriate response. As noted on WP:CONSENSUS: "Repeated reversions are contrary to Misplaced Pages policy under WP:Edit warring". Tiptoety 12:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect. Apparently you are unaware that making a change to an article requires a consensus, per WP:consensus. When there is not a consensus for change, there's discussion, not a change to the article. I was completely correct to return the article to the status quo before there was a dispute. That status quo had been in place for five years, so it was hardly controversial. Sorry to learn that you're unaware of how that part of the policy works, but now you've been told. And if you thought about it for a minute, it would be obvious that introducing new material should require a consensus, otherwise correct information could not be kept in an article -- as happened in this case. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- What you are essentially talking about is Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I'll note that this is not a policy, but an essay and clearly states it is not an exception to the edit warring policy. Simply saying, "I do not like the new edit, so I will continue to revert over and over to the status quo" is disruptive, goes against the concept of Misplaced Pages, and is blatant edit warring. Tiptoety 02:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)