Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:05, 22 July 2014

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

This is Ring Cinema's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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.

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)

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)

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)

I'm going to seek a third party's opinion on your edits because I find them to be very nonconstructive, even if my material was poorly written. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 05:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think it's necessary to list every actor who was considered for the role of Vito? I'm not sure about listing the famous actors who (supposedly!) refused the role of Michael. It really seems extremely trivial, if it's even true. Don't you agree? --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not my concern, you're deleting the information behind the acquisition of the movie rights to the film from Puzo, which is definitely relevant considering this article is about the movie. I welcomed the changes to the casting section, I knew I had probably overwritten that part of the article. In addition, you removed the first paragraph of the filming section that I had rewritten and sourced; you replaced it with what was there originally and un-sourced not well constructed two sentence prose. You also removed the two paragraphs that I had written about Coppola and Paramount in favor of what was there before: lengthy prose from one source, a DVD commentary. That's what I'm concerned with, your prose edits to the casting section were good; although you did completely remove some sources that I used multiple times so now there are sourcing errors in the article... Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 05:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to say optimistically that our thinking isn't very different. I agree that something about acquisition of the rights can go somewhere in the article, but I don't think it is right for production; I have an open mind. Puzo's personal finances, I'm not so keen on. Similarly, the paragraph you added to the lede would be fine elsewhere, just not in the lede. Sorry I didn't take the time to mention that. I didn't like the way you organized the Coppola/Paramount material and think Coppola's words are excellent for the section since it concerned him directly and personally and here he comments about it. My apologies about messing up the sources. I tried to conserve all sources but I was thinking more about the text. Thanks for bringing in new sources, too, and trying to improve the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I added the paragraph to the lead because the lead is supposed to briefly touch on every section within the article and I felt that paragraph help the lead cover what I had added and what was missing initially. I'm not a big fan of using those whole blocks of text, which is why I'm adamant about removing that who block quote from Coppola, which could easily be removed to a single line quote about it. I put back two little paragraphs in the film section that you removed again because they elaborated a little more and were actually sourced than what you had put back. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 14:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't have to include details from other sections. That we mention the major participants is adequate for the purpose of summarizing what follows. I was looking at the Coppola quote and am considering moving it to later in the section. Block quotes are fine and they add visual variety to the page. But maybe it's too personal. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my rewrites are better. Succinct without leaving anything out. This little detail of the incorrect forecast is trivial enough to leave out if it can't be squeezed in briefly. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I'd suggest sourcing the information you placed back then, but I find it certainly relevant if they moved the start of filming up five days because of the forecast, so definitely worth mentioning. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 15:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you're removing information that I have adequately sourced, claiming that it is "inaccurate"? Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 15:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not what the source says. "Interplay" is not the same as "alternating". You had it wrong, which I consider pretty serious since it calls into question all the other material you added that I didn't check, assuming you would be accurate. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Well my fault I having the incorrect definition for the word interplay.Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 15:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If you are trying to say that you found a definition of 'interplay' that suggests it is a synonym to 'alternating', I would like a citation on something that misguided. So maybe your reading comprehension is the issue or your memory of your sources perhaps. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)