Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gandydancer (talk | contribs) at 15:50, 5 June 2013 (→A beer for you! And maybe a nice little shot of whiskey too...: new WikiLove message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hey whats up.
if you leave a message, please do keep in mind the whole brevity thing.

Your username

Classic.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. El duderino 09:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.. I just came across your name in this SPI on User:Belchfire. Care to respond? El duderino 17:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Dougweller (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Sandstein

might interest you. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks. if you mean this thread then yes i've perused the church page but didnt look into it much. will check it out again later. El duderino 02:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

regarding RingCinema et al

@Winkelvi -- Hi. I've noticed you running into the same problems trying to collaborate with him as I did. I've replied at the current/recent 3RR notice , it's too bad he only got a warning this time. Who knows how many others he has chased off. I think the wp project would be better without him as he shows no interest in changing his behavior. And he has been encouraged for far too long. Fwiw, I think my 3RR report went 'stale' because of the (weekend) timing as well as two comments by involved editors who seemed to excuse his disruptive behavior because he works on so many film articles... I've never filed a RFC/U but it may be time to consider one.
      @Betty Logan seems to me like you (and others like User:Bzuk) defend/excuse RC's actions, if not his prickly demeanor -- at the current Godfather discussion thread and in the 3RR report I filed last year about a different article . Does the 'Film Project' still regard him as a net positive? What about the untold number of new users who could be regular contributors by now but have been discouraged by his self-appointed, heavy-handed policing? El duderino 07:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Three editors have each once reverted Winkelvi at The Godfather article so Winkelvi needs to find some common ground with them, and I just made a few suggestions, and even if you take Ring out of the equation you are still left with two other editors who opposed the edits. As for Ring in general, I am not entirely happy with being painted as a Ring "apologist": I will support him where I think his actions are reasonable and I won't when I disagree with him. In that particular ANI case it seems he was enforcing a guideline about NPOV language and I had defended his actions to that effect, and would most likely would have made the same edit myself which is why I didn't think the block was warranted; I am sure there are instances where he has ended up at ANI/3RR and I haven't spoken out on his behalf. The last time Ring and I were involved in discussions on an article was regarding Caché (film), and as you can see from the talk page we were on opposite sides of the fence, but we eventually found a solution and he accepted most of my 'compromise' edits. We are also on opposite sides of the fence at Template talk:Infobox film#"Preceded by" and "Followed by" where unfortunately our stances have not been reconcilable as of yet, so he clearly doesn't get unconditional support from me. In the case of The Godfather I think for the time being it would be better if the four editors who have engaged in adding content/reverting try to address the edits in good faith on the talk page. There is no way Ring will accept blanket changes, but he has indicated he will accept "improvements", and looking through the edit history of the article this seems to be an honest claim: he reverts an awful lot but he's let quite a lot through too. Betty Logan (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

He reverts too much and from his history, it seems he does so out of ownership. The other two editors (Gareth and the other whose name I can't remember right now) are obviously in collusion with Ring Cinema. Just look at their talk page exchange history with each other. Ownership, ownership, ownership is the diagnosis for all three. Gareth even used a phrase in an edit summary that was taken from my talk page discussion with Ring Cinema at "Chinatown". Their tag-team reverting and mutual adminration is clear as crystal, Betty Logan. Winkelvi (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Input at film talk pages

Please take a look at the newest discussion at Talk:Chinatown (1974 film). Give your opinion if you'd like. Winkelvi (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

how are you. haven't spoken to you in a while...we should make some moves towards doing something about the article ownership issues regarding Ring, Gareth and Jacobite. --JTBX (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey folks, I've been following some of those discussions from a distance and right now, as I've said before, I have no interest in engaging them on talk pages, as it doesn't seem to do any good. If either of you pursue admin action e.g. RFCU, please let me know and I will contribute there. El duderino 19:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

TPM ani -> arbcom_arbcom">

(rough draft of pointers to various threads)

supporting topic bans to wp:ANI

comment/followup to admin on utalk1

clarifying q to contributor on utalk2

+ considering response to oft-repeated (and now seemingly trite characterization) 'mob violence'

RFC/U on user:Arzel

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.Casprings (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you! And maybe a nice little shot of whiskey too...

You are not the only one that finds that editor irritating--I can hardly stand to be around him. Good Luck! Gandydancer (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)