| Revision as of 05:30, 21 July 2014 editDisc Wheel (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,965 edits →Godfather: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:35, 21 July 2014 edit undoRing Cinema (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers6,691 edits →GodfatherNext edit → | ||
| Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
| Hey, so I'm restoring a fair amount of the information that you removed from ], that you deemed "trivial" or did not give a reason for removing at all. I'll list the reasons here. You removed the part about Paramount purchasing the rights from Puzo which is certainly relevant and should be included. You removed several well sourced paragraphs in favor of (the initial filming paragraph, the coppola and paramount section, etc). I appreciate the majority of the ce-ing you've done with the casting cause I knew I went on a bit there, but I restored some information that was definitely valuable to the article. In the future it would be nice to discuss what you think about the article before you make such radical changes. ] <small>(] + ])</small> 05:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | Hey, so I'm restoring a fair amount of the information that you removed from ], that you deemed "trivial" or did not give a reason for removing at all. I'll list the reasons here. You removed the part about Paramount purchasing the rights from Puzo which is certainly relevant and should be included. You removed several well sourced paragraphs in favor of (the initial filming paragraph, the coppola and paramount section, etc). I appreciate the majority of the ce-ing you've done with the casting cause I knew I went on a bit there, but I restored some information that was definitely valuable to the article. In the future it would be nice to discuss what you think about the article before you make such radical changes. ] <small>(] + ])</small> 05:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| Sorry, I can't agree. The article is getting bloated with a lot of poorly written material. Just because something is sourced, that doesn't mean it belongs in the article. --] (]) 05:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:35, 21 July 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.
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)
- So why didn't you correct the article and revert it to the status quo yourself? Your actions make it appear that I was in error when I returned to the status quo, but I was correct. Reverting vandalism is not a violation of the edit warring policy, and it is not warring to return a page to the status quo. That's what I did. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- A content dispute does not equate to vandalism. Also, it is unreasonable to expect an administrator to revert to someone's preferred version in a content dispute. WP:INVOLVED prevents an administrator from such edits, with the exception of reverting obvious vandalism. The administrator is not concerned with the dispute, only with disruptive behavior. Instead of blocking you, the admin could have locked the article. In fact, if an article gets locked, the "wrong version" is always locked, according to one side of the dispute. See m:Wrong version.
- I looked at the page history and I see edit warring. Granted, you are offering different variations, but it's still warring. In any case, your block will expire soon on its own. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Nonsense. By your lights, the most outlandish nonsense should replace the facts and someone who reverts to the original is engaging in warring. Complete rubbish. Sorry to be so blunt, but your comments are pure hogwash. So, it's not case of my "preferred version". I guess you need to have it spelled out for you, so I will: returning to the status quo would be the correct place to leave the page. Man, your ad hominem bias knows no bounds. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- RIng Cinema, you are digging the hole deeper. My guess is, when this block expires, you will be returning to the edit war with renewed vigor, probably with the claim you are reverting vandalism. If you misread WP:VANDAL enough times you may be sanctioned. If you believe "it is not warring to return a page to the status quo" please cite where you read that in our edit warring policy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yet another admin who doesn't understand that an article should be returned to the status quo during a content dispute??? Wow, that is amazing! Fortunately, I am 100% correct and that is my entire claim. If LazloFeelo's repeated violations of the policy weren't vandalism, call it what you will. The point is, I was returning the article to the status quo that had been in place for five years. It was not controversial. So, yeah, I'm right about that. Poor you, that you're wrapped up in your sad little world where getting the facts into the encyclopedia doesn't interfere with your strutting around pointing in the wrong direction. Typical admins! Sorry for wanting to get things right! --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea where you get the notion that "an article should be returned to the status quo during a content dispute". I am not aware of any policy or guideline that says so, and it is certainly not normal practice. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is the policy of Misplaced Pages. Absent a consensus for change, there is no change. As it says on the consensus policy page: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." So, yeah, the admins don't know the policy. Amazing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Saying that when a discussion fails to produce consensus for change the old version is kept is not the same as saying that during discussion the page must be reverted, and certainly not the same as saying that an editor is free to edit war to keep restoring the old version. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is the policy of Misplaced Pages. Absent a consensus for change, there is no change. As it says on the consensus policy page: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." So, yeah, the admins don't know the policy. Amazing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea where you get the notion that "an article should be returned to the status quo during a content dispute". I am not aware of any policy or guideline that says so, and it is certainly not normal practice. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yet another admin who doesn't understand that an article should be returned to the status quo during a content dispute??? Wow, that is amazing! Fortunately, I am 100% correct and that is my entire claim. If LazloFeelo's repeated violations of the policy weren't vandalism, call it what you will. The point is, I was returning the article to the status quo that had been in place for five years. It was not controversial. So, yeah, I'm right about that. Poor you, that you're wrapped up in your sad little world where getting the facts into the encyclopedia doesn't interfere with your strutting around pointing in the wrong direction. Typical admins! Sorry for wanting to get things right! --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- RIng Cinema, you are digging the hole deeper. My guess is, when this block expires, you will be returning to the edit war with renewed vigor, probably with the claim you are reverting vandalism. If you misread WP:VANDAL enough times you may be sanctioned. If you believe "it is not warring to return a page to the status quo" please cite where you read that in our edit warring policy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Nonsense. By your lights, the most outlandish nonsense should replace the facts and someone who reverts to the original is engaging in warring. Complete rubbish. Sorry to be so blunt, but your comments are pure hogwash. So, it's not case of my "preferred version". I guess you need to have it spelled out for you, so I will: returning to the status quo would be the correct place to leave the page. Man, your ad hominem bias knows no bounds. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- So why didn't you correct the article and revert it to the status quo yourself? Your actions make it appear that I was in error when I returned to the status quo, but I was correct. Reverting vandalism is not a violation of the edit warring policy, and it is not warring to return a page to the status quo. That's what I did. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:44, 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)
It isn't the same? Well, yeah, it is the same. You're mistaken about that. When material is included without a consensus, the consensus version should be restored. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:47, 1 May 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. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ring_Cinema reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: ). Thank you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:24, 1 May 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:
Why am I being blocked for editing the page? This is a question of what is the correct content and I am offering that. I didn't change anyone else's edit. Ring Cinema (talk) 1:34 pm, Today (UTC+1)
Decline reason:
The correctness or otherwise of the content is not the issue here - you repeatedly reverted another user to maintain your preferred version of the article. It's to your credit that you at least made an attempt to discuss the problem on the article's talkpage, but you were still edit warring, and your unblock appeal will need to address that, as well as giving some indication of how you intend to avoid this behaviour in the future. Yunshui 水 13:50, 1 May 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.
- I did not do that. I added the same content that has been there since 2009 and left the other content as it was. Go look again. You have your facts wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Makes no difference. The fact is, you repeatedly reinserted the $193m figure in the face of opposition from several other editors, and rather than waiting for a consensus to emerge, you edit-warred to keep the article the way you wanted it. The fact that the data you were warring over had been in the article since 2009 is neither here nor there. I suggest you read the edit-warring policy again, particularly the bit which says Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring". Yunshui 水 14:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- It does make a difference. You're mistaken in two ways. First, the other editors objected to that figure because it wasn't sourced. I sourced it. That's not edit warring, that's answering an objection. Secondly, as Tiptoey mentions above, there was never a consensus to remove the $193 million figure anyway. It was under discussion and had been in the article since 2009, so it is not forbidden to include it until there is a consensus to change it. And I have to mention again: I left the other content in the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that it is you who is mistaken here. The content under dispute is wholly irrelevant to this block. You are blocked because of your behaviour, not because of the information you added. Please read the edit-warring policy. Yunshui 水 07:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- What behavior are you talking about? I didn't revert anyone, I edited the page with legitimate content that was sourced. That's not edit warring, that's editing. So I expect to be reinstated promptly. Thanks for taking care of that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's editing when you do it once. But this, this, and this constitute repeatedly attempting to restore your preferred version of the article. That is edit warring. You need to convince an administrator that you understand this before your block can be lifted. Arguments about content aren't helping. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Wait, aren't you the admin who said something last week that I had to correct him on? Yes, that was you. You are one of the admins who didn't believe that the status quo should be restored during a content dispute. But now what are you saying??? Exactly the opposite? Yes, exactly the opposite. So, now maybe you'd like to go back and admit that you got it completely wrong when I was restoring the status quo last week. Get right on it! I'm happy to have set you straight. Please do your best to inform other admins how this works; none of them are up to speed. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Your reading comprehension ability leaves much to be desired. It has been made clear to you that edit warring is irrelevant to whatever the status quo may be. And JamesBWatson already corrected your comprehension of Wiipedia policy with respect to the status quo. Perhaps you didn't read that comment. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, I'm sure my reading comprehension is intact. Maybe there is some particular point you think I got wrong...? As for JamesBWatson, I can't share your assessment. He seems to have the view that something can happen and not happen at the same time, so he has a long way to go before anything he says gets my endorsement. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Your reading comprehension ability leaves much to be desired. It has been made clear to you that edit warring is irrelevant to whatever the status quo may be. And JamesBWatson already corrected your comprehension of Wiipedia policy with respect to the status quo. Perhaps you didn't read that comment. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Wait, aren't you the admin who said something last week that I had to correct him on? Yes, that was you. You are one of the admins who didn't believe that the status quo should be restored during a content dispute. But now what are you saying??? Exactly the opposite? Yes, exactly the opposite. So, now maybe you'd like to go back and admit that you got it completely wrong when I was restoring the status quo last week. Get right on it! I'm happy to have set you straight. Please do your best to inform other admins how this works; none of them are up to speed. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's editing when you do it once. But this, this, and this constitute repeatedly attempting to restore your preferred version of the article. That is edit warring. You need to convince an administrator that you understand this before your block can be lifted. Arguments about content aren't helping. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- What behavior are you talking about? I didn't revert anyone, I edited the page with legitimate content that was sourced. That's not edit warring, that's editing. So I expect to be reinstated promptly. Thanks for taking care of that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that it is you who is mistaken here. The content under dispute is wholly irrelevant to this block. You are blocked because of your behaviour, not because of the information you added. Please read the edit-warring policy. Yunshui 水 07:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- It does make a difference. You're mistaken in two ways. First, the other editors objected to that figure because it wasn't sourced. I sourced it. That's not edit warring, that's answering an objection. Secondly, as Tiptoey mentions above, there was never a consensus to remove the $193 million figure anyway. It was under discussion and had been in the article since 2009, so it is not forbidden to include it until there is a consensus to change it. And I have to mention again: I left the other content in the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Makes no difference. The fact is, you repeatedly reinserted the $193m figure in the face of opposition from several other editors, and rather than waiting for a consensus to emerge, you edit-warred to keep the article the way you wanted it. The fact that the data you were warring over had been in the article since 2009 is neither here nor there. I suggest you read the edit-warring policy again, particularly the bit which says Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring". Yunshui 水 14:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, why aren't you advocating a suspension for the editors who reverted me? They were attempting to restore their preferred version, weren't they? (Hint: yes, that's exactly what they were doing.) Take care of that detail, too, while you're at it. Many thanks for correcting your previous mistakes and being consistent, Amatulic. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't block you this time. I don't see any disruption from the other users since you were blocked. If you'd point it out, I'll consider taking action. You don't seem to realize that administrators don't care about your content dispute. Administrative tools are intended to prevent disruption. That's how they were applied in your case. We already know you don't like it. Belaboring that point and attacking others isn't helping you.
- My comments over the past few days have been intended as friendly advice about concerns to address in your next unblock request. And I'm happy to consider unblocking you if you can show that you understand those concerns and will abide by best practices such as WP:BRD in the future. You have proven yourself to be a positive constructive contributor to film articles, it's just the disputes that need work. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing my input here, but I want to be sure you know what you're talking about. First off, I follow BRD without fail. I did in this case. Strangely, when other editors don't, I'm accused of warring and the admin smugly claims it's not policy, apparently unaware that it simply reflects policy. As I’ve mentioned before, admins consistently get it wrong, probably because of their unfortunate culture. I'm sure Satan in his lair is having a good laugh on them. ("So you're saying all we have to do is put in 666 and then accuse whoever reverts us of edit warring? Let it be done, my minions! Mwahahahah!") So I’m not sure why you said you want me to follow BRD, which has been my practice.
- And what do you mean by "I don't see any disruption from the other users since you were blocked." What does that mean?
- So, here's what you have to say to persuade me you are on the right page: when I follow BRD and other editors don't, how are the admins going to help? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Amatulic, still waiting to hear from you. How are the admins going to help when it's time to follow WP policy on consensus? --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Godfather
Hey, so I'm restoring a fair amount of the information that you removed from The Godfather, that you deemed "trivial" or did not give a reason for removing at all. I'll list the reasons here. You removed the part about Paramount purchasing the rights from Puzo which is certainly relevant and should be included. You removed several well sourced paragraphs in favor of (the initial filming paragraph, the coppola and paramount section, etc). I appreciate the majority of the ce-ing you've done with the casting cause I knew I went on a bit there, but I restored some information that was definitely valuable to the article. In the future it would be nice to discuss what you think about the article before you make such radical changes. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 05:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't agree. The article is getting bloated with a lot of poorly written material. Just because something is sourced, that doesn't mean it belongs in the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)