This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ring Cinema. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The December 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
No Country
Hi,
I think that this mention of the exact place where the main characters live is not an unnecessary detail. If not well put or introduced in the plot or elsewhere in the article, I might suggest to place it at what appears to you as a pertinent position, but not basically reverse/omit the fact. Thx--LPLT (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Right, well, my thinking is that it is incidental because nothing in the story depends on it. We establish the setting, but in a different way from naming a place that is obscure anyway. Maybe you are right, though. Admittedly, this is a problem area. I am thinking about it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I haven't noticed it was already mentionned with the footnote, to be honnest. Thus seems ok eventhough it can be clearly notified in the text too. Considering some additionnal precisions, when you make a pause on the film at the scene of the phone bill (when Chighur enters the trailer), you can see that the days in which the action takes place are between the June 3rd/4th to June 6th since the last call registered on the bill is passed on June 3rd probably a friday, since the bill arrived in the mail box on monday morning, probably the 6th. You may mention day period too, up to you. Cheers.--LPLT (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The January 2012 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Thanks for your message on my talk page. Your edit this evening broke another reference. References can be named, such as <ref name="Baxter29">Author, page</ref>, so that you can save space and memory if using the same references elsewhere in the article. But, if you delete the defining reference, any subsequent <ref name="Baxter29"/> has nothing to refer back to, so will give an ugly red error message. The answer is to check if a named reference is used elsewhere before removing it; if you choose to remove it, then you'll need to find the <ref name="Baxter29"/> (the 'find' tool is your friend here) and reinsert the full reference. I think a bot fixes these automatically these days, though.
On another note, we need to work on the Themes section.So far we only have one source from a rather amateurish online 'magazine' which has no assertion of notability. There will be plenty of respectable sources out there; Peter Cowie's book, etc. The JPStalk to me20:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that a variety of references are helpful. As a compromise, I have removed the Rosenblum one from that claim, keeping Baxter and NYT (although the NYT is a respectable source, book sources generally have more prestige). The reference currently named "Annie" covered a range of pages -- these should be sorted so that the specific page numbers are used. But, I really think we need to develop the 'themes' section, as it doesn't look very good to ignore a range of established scholars in favour of a non-established website. The JPStalk to me11:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I have the three films, so although I suspect I can answer your question accurately, I shall watch it this afternoon after my lunch (which is on the table!) and get back to you later today. It is 14:36 hrs. British Summer Time in the old UK, and I have just come in late from walking with my dog...
Best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
That was great! Will now rewatch "II" & "III" for the countless time.
Okay, the sequence of events:
Heavily pregnant Connie answers the phone to a female who says, "Tell Carlo, I can't see him tonight>"
She tells him that his dinner is ready. He says that he doesn't want it.
Fearsome row ensues ... Connie smashes crockery ... he gives her a dreadful beating.
Carlo leaves. Connie telephones. Sonny, wild with temper, races off alone ...
Must be a set up: Ambush waiting at the toll booth.
Oh, and it is 1946 (not '45) mentioned at the time of the attack on Vito. I have made that edit now.
I wanted to mention that, since you love watching the film so much, I believe you would enjoy Coppola's commentary, especially to the first film. He mentions so many interesting things about production. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
You are correct. I do. My three are the 25th Anniversary Editions the wide-screen versions, on good old VHS video tapes. The commentaries are great.
I just wanted to tell you how pleased I am with your editing of the Plot summary in The Godfather article this afternoon (I'm in the UK... where are you?) and to let you know that I have put the paragraphs back as they were to facilitate comparison with earlier edits. This may help to avoid hysterical reverting of your excellent work. I have also made a few minor edits. Have a look! All the best, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Just doing my job. I trust you know better about this in terms of why you changed the paragraphs back etc. JTBX (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I still am, and still go around plots making sure they are concise and tidy, but this film is of course different, and very long. If you have read my draft please consider it, as way too many details were being left out at the expense of sacrificing notable information. --JTBX (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC
Sure. I was heads up on this last night, but thought you were going to wait until you had some response to your posting on the article's Talk page. Then I found my friend User:Ring Cinema was on the case. I am sure we three can work well together. Cheers, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
You've lost the thread
Why are you editing the draft on the talk page? As I already mentioned, all the useful elements have been incorporated into the article already. Please stop. I don't want a wholesale replacement of what is already a reasonably good plot summary. Every difference between the two drafts is better in the article. Edit the article if you want to improve the plot summary. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
When I posted the above on your page – Section: Good work! – on 18 April 2012, which I had copied from my Talk page and JTBXs talk page, I expected you to reply to me.
Then I got the impression that you were having a "co-operating dialogue" with User:JTBX on The Godfather discussion page, whereas I was in total amazement that here he was expanding the plot without any edit summaries – just like User:Wrath X was on April 1 and April 2 until my intervention – when two months ago, I was saying "Well done!" ( I posted that dialogue with User:JTBX here – see above)...
He was "hell-bent" on brevity then, only two months ago.
You are still, today, working together on it, aren't you?
Well, I am observing. What happened was that I asked JTBX to put a draft on the talk page. I took the parts I thought were improvements in the article. I thought you would notice that, so I wasn't explicit about it. Then you edited the talk page, and I left you the note that I'd prefer we edit the article. Then you continued to edit the article. So here we are. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I understand now, but I had been, mistakenly, believing that the draft was your work. The request to put a draft on the discussion page missed me – where is it? Did you e-mail User:JTBX? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The Godfather Effect
I'm a little uncomfortable with so much emphasis given to one book and one aspect. Many people have said a lot of insightful things about this film, and the conclusion that ethnicities in America rediscovered themselves in the aftermath of this film seems to require some empirical support. Coppola saw the film as a general indictment of American culture (as it implies) and that is more easily supported. Since America has always had strong ethnic identification among its polity, it is somewhat more difficult to make the case that, say, Irish-Americans took The Godfather to heart and realized they felt a bit of the shamrock. When did they not? So, do we strike the right balance? I am undecided. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I have been re-reading your posting for the second time and still not clear what you are after. When you write "...one book and one aspect" ... are you referring to all three film articles, or just The Godfather article? Explain, please. On the other hand, I would like to contribute, but not sure that this Welshman has the qualifications to dare venture into an American ethnicity issue like this. Can you comment please. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The section so entitled refers primarily to one book on the subject. So, just on general principles, I question that much emphasis, given the size and scope of the subject, on one book. There are many things written about this movie. That's what I am thinking about. That, and a lack of skepticism about the book's claims. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am with you now. I tend to agree with your argument. I must check out the history appertaining to this section. In my mind right now, if asked, I would say that it was born out of some of the Wrath X-187-no-edit summaries-débâcle of April 1 to April 2. I shall check that out today. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
As promised, I have done the investigation. Apologies to friend Wrath X, he only altered the size of the image. No, it was someone known as Nelsondenis248, who created the section based on a small amount of existing copy within the article, on March 2 this year. Is this person known to you? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
No, doesn't seem out of place to me. Berlin or Venice could lay claim to that title, too, but I think Cannes is held slightly higher. Toronto pretty much shut down due to the festival when I was there last year, but I guess any city hosting a major international film festival does. Lugnuts (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at No Country for Old Men (film) 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.
Because you wanted to be sure they knew that you were trying to ignore two other editors and were also wrong on the merits? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
This is the last time I'm going to reply here: it is you who is ignoring other editors. Star originally wanted "mainly positive" so he/she is in agreement with me and the others at the talkpage discussion. The later compromises don't diminish that fact. El duderino (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Ring Cinema. You have new messages at [[User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones#Your suggestion for the Godfather dispute?|Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page]]. Message added 01:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Have you seen "No Country" today? This is becoming serious. Also his attempt to involve MarnetteD | Talk I think he probably got the idea of doing that from my talk page ... see this I've been following The Godfather talk with dismay.
Re- his plot draft:
Having edited the first paragraph yesterday, I have just had a go at the second. It now reads thus:
Drug baron Virgil "The Turk" Sollozzo (Al Lettieri), backed by the Tattaglia family, asks Vito for investment and protection through his political connections, but Vito declines and voices his disapproval of drug dealers. His enforcer, Luca Brasi (Lenny Montana) is killed when sent to spy on them. Sollozzo attempts to assassinate Vito. His eldest son, Sonny (James Caan) takes command. Sollozzo kidnaps Hagen, suggesting he should persuade Sonny to accept his deal. Whilst the Corleone family discuss the situation, they receive a fish in Brasi's vest confirming he sleeps with the fishes.
Not necessary. I already edited the second paragraph in the article. The chance that he's going to be anything but a nuisance is about equal to zero. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
JT can decide to be productive, or he can decide to be destructive. For The Godfather, we're fine. We'll proceed on the basis of unanimity. I don't want you to be in the middle. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
And apparantly I do not know what Consensus means. From the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Consensus "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." Which is what I have been trying to do.
(Talkback)(No Country for Old Men) I am not disrupting the article, only improving it. I did not use personal attacks, that is simply a falsfication. I am not violating any consensus, there is simply one on the plot which mentioned reducing detail and improving it, and which is what I am doing. I see it needs to be improved more and trying to be productive, but you have continually reverted my edits. Please stop. If you have suggestions, take them to the talk page. --JTBX (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The fact that you took my edits to No Country as a disruption illustrates my point perfectly. You took it as another attack, when I was simply editing to improve, because you do not own the article. "Our way of thinking". I contacted MarnetteD and others as part of a wider consensus and going through The Godfather history to see who else had been editing the article, so that is wrong now? Its called Rfc too and following Wikipedia policy. WP:PLOTSUM I expected better, since you would rather leave in details such as "sleep with the fishes" over Peter Clemenza killing Paulie and so on. But which I chose to keep as part of the consensus. SO so many problems like this with the current summary. Obviously Gareth you want it to remain Ring, you and me, while trying to act like a neutral partner but really just pulling me along to Ring's side. But that will never happen. Ring has been caught for the edit warrior he is. --JTBX (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
No, this just illustrates that you don't understand that you need a consensus to make changes. Gareth is not "rolling over." He is making a simple judgement about who is trying to be productive and who is trying to be disruptive. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
You have been clearly misleading him from what I have read. Its a shame really. Also, the amount of work I put in is not productive, the ideas which you took from my draft is not productive, but you leading editors in circles, cutting, reverting, warring and wasting people's time is productive. JTBX (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I have misled Gareth? That's laughable. He thinks for himself. You want to be disruptive, it seems. Okay, that's your choice. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at No Country for Old Men (film) 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. 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.
I have just noticed your edit summary comment of this morning on the Talk:The Godfather page, regarding the moving of your postings. Who is responsible?
I moved copy from my talk page, because I felt it was better to have the continuity of all that has been said together in one place for all to read, and I no longer wanted to keep it there. However, if that has been the cause of your concern, I should like to know. Kind regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Just been reading the archived discussion. Incredible, all that, and the result: "no consensus". What more can you be expected to do?! Why wasn't the change in article title made?
I received a Wikipediia posting/greeting yesterday from someone I have never come across before, located in Tasmania. I had thought that you must have known him. As for The Beatles, I have all their records – 45's and LP's – all bought on release in the sixties. You clever devil! Yesterday, there was a (slightly more than) subliminal glimpse of your page when I clicked on the link in the greeting before Birthday leapt out from my speakers. But not today. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I know a thing or two about the lads from Liverpool, I guess. I have a friend whose boyfriend worked at a record store where the Beatles mobiles were displayed. Did they have them in England? They were like life-sized promotional images that usually had a moving part or two. They put them up when a new album came out. In any event, when the promotion was over, he would give her these mobiles. She collected them in her parents' basement. That worked beautifully until the day the marriage was on the rocks and she was away to university. She came home to find that her mother had decided to clean out everything and send it to the city dump. Ouch! A fortune in the landfill. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I think that the fact that you combined the two Anton Chigurh sections into one made it look better ... you used the word characterization, but how aboyt:
"Anton Chigurh: Characterization and symbolism"
Characterization is "A description of qualities or peculiarities" and
Symbolism is "the representation of something in symbolic form or the attribution of symbolic meaning or character to something"
I believe both apply Star of Amman (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star of Amman (talk • contribs) 22:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest ... I'm very new to wiki talk pages and i still haven't figured out how to open private one-to-one discussion pages ... it would be appreciated if you can point out Star of Amman (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, a talk page is sort of "private", I guess, although anyone can read it. You can email me if you want. That is the extent of the privacy options. I follow talk pages where I have posted so when something new shows up there it shows up on my watchlist. Does that suit you for these purposes? --Ring Cinema (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The Godfather II
Ring, I have just reverted The Godfather II plot summary, and then found this on my talk page!
Godfather Part II
Help me improve this! I cut it down to 1,300 words from the bulky 2,500 or whatever it was...too big! --JTBX (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
My response
You cannot reduce in one swoop, 6,092 bytes, from the plot summary. You are courting with disaster. I saw what you had done , and reverted your revision within five minutes. I know what you have done, editing it privately on Word.
Be reasonable. How can other editors compare your version with the established summary? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I have noted your posting on my talk page in response to this. Within half an hour tonight, JTBX has blasted through The Godfather plot, which I reverted to MarnetteD's latest version, and then this 6,092 bytes reduction to The Godfather II. Words fail me. What a month April has been! First of all, User;Wrath X, and now this. And he has been carping on about the posting I put on his page about NCFOM, that you posted elsewhere, and criticising me for not leaving a signature. I think it absurd. What does he mean by my having an agenda? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC:
Do I have to notify JTBX that I put a note on a 3RR complaint he filed against me that was already decided for the purpose of pointing out that he has violated the admin's decision at least in part?
--23:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Ring Cinema (talk)
you shouldn't have edited the archive like you did here, however the point is moot as he responded to you here. As a rule, if somebody creates a thread about you on a notice board, you don't need to notify them if you reply to it, but again, you shouldn't have added to the archive in the first place.--kelapstick(bainuu) 06:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Plot summaries: The Godfather films
Ring, I have posted this on the talk page of my mentor
Hello again RC,
The following posting is regarding the first two of The Godfather films, which I left on User:Ring Cinema's talk page tonight. The third party is User:JTBX
The Godfather II
Ring, I have just reverted The Godfather II plot summary, and then found this on my talk page!
Godfather Part II
Help me improve this! I cut it down to 1,300 words from the bulky 2,500 or whatever it was...too big! --JTBX (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
My response
You cannot reduce in one swoop, 6,092 bytes, from the plot summary. You are courting with disaster. I saw what you had done , and reverted your revision within five minutes. I know what you have done, editing it privately on Word.
Be reasonable. How can other editors compare your version with the established summary? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Ring, I have noted your posting on my talk page in response to this. Within half an hour tonight, JTBX has blasted through The Godfather plot, which I reverted to MarnetteD's latest version, and then this 6,092 bytes reduction to The Godfather II. Words fail me. What a month April has been! First of all, User:Wrath X, and now this. And he has been carping on about the posting I put on his page about NCFOM, that you posted elsewhere, and criticising me for not leaving a signature. I think it absurd. What does he mean by my having an agenda? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)RJ -- My posting is towards the end of all this, for your reference
Thanks for the note. I haven't responded but it has been on my mind. JT seems ready to accuse you of bad faith for agreeing with me. He could be a productive editor, but he finds me a lot more interesting. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
You are engaging in disruptive editing at No Country for Old Men (film). Making changes in an article requires a consensus. Currently, you are violating that policy. After your unjustified personal attacks on me, you were told by EdJohnston that you could be sanctioned. Your response is to violate the policy on consensus. I would advise against that. You can be a productive editor, but this is not how it's done. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not disrupting the article, only improving it. I did not use personal attacks, that is simply a falsification. I am not violating any consensus, there is simply one on the plot which mentioned reducing detail and improving it, and which is what I am doing. I see it needs to be improved more and trying to be productive, but you have continually reverted my edits. Please stop. If you have suggestions, take them to the talk page. --JTBX (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
As an observation, I was appalled yesterday, when I was aware of your weighing into No Country for Old Men, and drew it to Ring's attention, as you have noticed. Not sensible, and really very obvious!
I thought you would be interested, following your posting yesterday on the FilmProject article because User:JTBX launched into NCFOM on the day he was prevented from editing The Godfather for three days last week.
Hello Ring, I have read your response to RJ on my page ... I can understand his not wanting to be involved. I endorse what you wrote. All the best, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ring Cinema, I reverted your edit on The Secret in Their Eyes because if we add the time span (1976-83) the article contradicts itself (the main part of the story is set in 1974-75). Another reason is that no matter what the Dirty War article states, the cited source doesn't mention any time period. IMO, we can overcome this by suppressing any time reference.--Darius (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
No contradiction, actually. As it says, the story takes place in certain years that cover the period of the Dirty War and the period of the Dirty War is mentioned explicitly in the first sentence of the article on the subject. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The article loosely says that the movie "is built around the notoriously repressive state violence of the 1970s", which is more accurate that the later mention of the "Dirty War" (The plot doesn't deal with the dictatorship's period). I agree, however, that the wording "within the context of " describes flawlessly what the cited source suggests. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and I lived my childhood and preteen years through the dictatorship, so I know the correct period by myself, not by sources...but WP is based on verifiability, not in the truth...;)--Darius (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, sure, but if something is wrong we should fix it. I think it's important for this article to try to indicate the history of the period at least to some extent. It is not incidental, right? But then I also don't want to go too far, either. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I put his bad behaviour down to immaturity ... he's only twenty ... having said that, his input is of value and I liked working with him at the start. == Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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.
Nonsense. You're not following the guidelines. If you don't start following the guidelines, I will have you blocked for vandalism. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I have a hard time not viewing this as intentional baiting, willful obtuseness, tag-team editing, or some combination of those, but perhaps it was only intended as an effort to promote tenuously French or Italian films. In this case, labeling what is flatly an Austrian & German movie as such, I do not understand. Perhaps Das blaue Licht should be called an Italian film since it is set in Italy and Leni plays an Italian character. That sort of thing is strange or deceptive. Anyway, pursuing this as a 3RR is unnecessary. I wish editors would not be so quick to try to punish each other for understandable disputes. Obotlig (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm cutting you a major break only because it's been a while since you last reverted; you were clearly edit warring, and I could have easily blocked you for 2 weeks. You have got to stop edit warring. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I am warring? I am being warred against. What am I supposed to do when erroneous stuff is put on the page while a discussion is going on? Please advise on an available procedure for that because I am doing the best I can. -- Ring Cinema (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the rule against warring is pretty strict but it should be applied to the two who were tag-teaming you as well. I could easily have jumped in and applied equal reversions while avoiding 3RR but that is still warring, because of the obvious intent. Again I have not looked at edit histories but given the talk page being tagged with Italian and French film project templates, I suspect they are systematically doing this, or in general trying to imply every possible European film is multinational if production companies from any other country were involved to any degree. If a film is almost entirely filmed in wherever, say England, and an American-owned or American company does some special effects work, does that count it as an American film? It smells of internationalist agenda but shrug everyone has beliefs that affect what and how they edit. Obotlig (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
@ Ring Cinema, you are not edit warring. You are being bullied and misrepresented by a clique that continually, and consistently, ridicule themselves during this particular strand. I have total respect for you. The block is a disgrace against exactly what Wikipedia's ethos is all about. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
As the record shows, two editors decided to act without consensus to make changes that, as it happens, introduce errors into the article. A discussion was underway but they continued to make changes. I suggested page protection. Another admin said in the discussion that the problems were equal on both sides, and the other editors took that as a sign apparently to continue with their tactics. So, with the support of two other editors, I have been maintaining the article while the discussion continued. If all of us were blocked, that would make some sense. This is just abuse of the system by incompetent editors. Note my talk page, with similar comments by other editors. Ring Cinema (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2012 (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.
They aren't errors when it's just you sopaboxing your opionions on what consists of a film's nationality. I asked for sources, you show me none, you do not put good faith in other user's when they are being honest with you. Then you get upset when you are blocked (and you've been blocked before for similar reasons) because you must be correct even though you have nothing to back it up other than some off paragraph where someone called something Austrian. I've found 7 things calling it all the countries. Thanks for calling me a bully when I'm standing up for written citations and you are still soapboxing about Italian based Korean productions or something. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, A, they are errors. Some people can read "The film is Austrian" and understand the film is Austrian. Then there's you. But I want to thank you again for making it obvious how out in right field you are with this. If your position requires you to call The White Ribbon a French film... well, I mentioned this to a friend the other day who works in film, and he laughed pretty hard. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Northern Lights, let me remind you that I asked you twice how I should deal with editors like Lugnuts and A who are putting incorrect information in Wikipedia. And this is your response? Trying to pretend you can threaten me? Issuing threats like you're someone I should respect? No, you're not judging me. I am judging you. So far, you appear to be an unfortunate martinet who has been given too much authority. But of course you won't agree with that because martinets deny it to themselves. Don't let it bother you! Anyway, your unfortunate errors will soon be forgotten. In the meantime, if you want to do something useful, answer my questions. What procedure do you recommend when other editors (i.e. Lugnuts and Andzjbanas) edit without consensus, accuse others of edit warring when they are edit warring themselves, and pretend there is no evidence in front of them when it has been pointed out repeatedly? Is there a procedure for that situation? I know you love the chance to issue empty threats, but I'm actually more focused on improving the encyclopedia. Any suggestions? --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, actually. I suggest you act like you're interested in collaboration instead of talking about how it's you versus everyone else. If you're the only one who feels the need to fight for something, you should perhaps think about why you might be the only person feeling that need. And finally, I'm not issuing empty threats; civility is a policy, as is WP:NPA. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I violated no policy, including civility. The distinction between my actions and Andrzejbanas's are exactly zero, except that according to the policy on consensus, they should have waited for the discussion before making changes. So, thanks to your mistake, that policy stands violated. And still you have no suggestion to deal with the problem of the editors who can't command a consensus but want to make changes anyway. Three times I've asked. What would you like to do to correct that? --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Without being rude it does seem like The Blade of the Northern Lights may be suffering from some WP:COMPETENCY issues. If what Ring Cinema said qualifies as a block-worthy personal attack there would be a great many editors blocked. How hard is to understand why Ring Cinema finds bizarre the push to label films by countries which no reasonable person would attribute them to. It's at least an honest dispute. I think he may be completely right. This is probably baiting, POV pushing, etc. by the editors desiring to tag a movie with every conceivable country of origin. Speculating why there is such a push would not be assuming good faith, but it is very strange. Saying someone is "pretty far in out in right field" and that some friend of Ring Cinema's laughed at the notion this should be labeled a French film is not a personal attack, it is a direct comment on the content and behaviors. Editors do this routinely and complaints about it are always ignored - as long as the perpetrators have the right administrators backing them I guess. Obotlig (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I endorse this posting by Obotlig without reservation. Another admin must get involved here. The reputation of a valuable editor is being systematically damaged by a clique of ... No, I shall leave it there! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
How exactly do you propose any admin "get involved"? There's nothing actionable here. Requests to involve admins concerning the actions of one administrator should be posted to WP:ANI, not somebody's talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the kind words. There's quite a contrast between the nitpicking about me and the serial violations of policy and guidelines that I was responding to originally. No doubt he should have treated Lugnuts and Andzj the same as me, since there is not a dime's worth of difference between us. I think Northern Lights objected to my comment because it makes it hard to continue the fiction that he backed the right horse. In other words, he took it personally. But at the same time I appreciate his sentiments, as they are not of themselves wrongheaded. I am focused on improving the reference, so let's try to do that. Thanks again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Amatulic, if you don't want to be helpful, why are you commenting here? Did you want to be reminded me of the time you blocked me when I was involved with editors who claimed a consensus when they were in the minority? Far from your most perceptive moment (to give you the benefit of the doubt). Or are you more interested in reliving the time you blocked me for only 2 reverts for some reason? Maybe you were proud of that ridiculous action, but it made it clear that you're a bit off in some way. Now here you are again, saying nothing useful and making a show of your hostility toward me. Okay, you are hostile and everyone can see it. I think you should know that I have a very low opinion of your competence and if you stick your nose in I am happy to go over your obvious mistakes every time. Does it interest you? We can discuss your serial failings or you can go away until you can make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I have no hostility toward you. In fact I recall supporting you in a past discussion elsewhere once, and even protested to the blocking admin when your talk page access got revoked. Anyway, my comments to you have always been civil, yet for some reason you feel the need to hurl insults every chance you get. But if it makes you feel good, by all means, have at it. I don't really care. Someone else might care about your repeated violations of WP:CIVIL and revoke your talk page access yet again. If you have a problem with any admin, fulminating about it on your talk page won't get anywhere. As I stated earlier, WP:ANI is the place to air your grievances. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
In view of your recent posting here, and a new editor's input on the subject over night, regarding "The Godfather Effect", I thought you would like to see that I have taken action – on all three articles, and copied the full current strand to all three Discussion pages. I felt sure that you would not object to my taking the initiative on this, and I wanted to show the other editor that we have already been discussing this subject.
Please click on my name in the blue box to take you directly to the relevant part of a much too long Talk page!
Perusal of your talk page, your repeated warnings and bans, your persistence in error, and your general mode of expressing yourself shows you to have an approach which doesn't merit further use of my limited time. Best wishes. Ironman1104 (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
You deleted "The source of the engine is unknown". In the film, during the FAA investigation scene, Elizabeth says "They don't know where it came from."
You deleted the description of what is in the book, though this clearly shows these words are visible onscreen. If describing Frank or the jet engine or Gretchen or any other visual in the film in words isn't "interpretation", why is describing straight text? If anything, it needs less interpretation.
You deleted the mention of the jet engine being ripped into the wormhole. I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that this isn't in the film. It clearly is, the climax no less.
Your last deletion of Primary and Tangent Universes is slightly understandable, given your position on the talk page.
That's great, but the stuff you removed is clearly backed by the primary source. You can't remove stuff that is sourced from one place simply because it isn't in another. If that were the case, you could delete the Critical Reception or Marketing sections by the same rationale. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
About not using a lack of information in one source to overrule information in another? I would hope not. I'm really confused about your "Salon" comments. Are you trying to say that this is the only source we're allowed to use in the article? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
As a practical matter ...
I don't want to clutter up the consensus talk page with this question, so I am bringing it here. Do you see a difference between:
As a practical matter, "according to consensus" or "violates consensus" are weak reasons for rejecting a proposal; instead, the reasons for objecting should be explained, followed with discussion on the merits of the proposal.
and
"According to consensus" or "violates consensus" are weak reasons for rejecting a proposal; instead, the reasons for objecting should be explained, followed with discussion on the merits of the proposal.
Assuming that you are also a native English speaker, you don't need to have it explained to you. When someone asks a question they know the answer to, they are not looking for information. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I want to assure you that I am not being purposefully obtuse. I honestly cannot tell from your comments here and at consensus whether YOU see a difference in the meaning of the two sentences. I don't.[fn1] Maybe we agree, maybe we disagree. I'd like to know and I'd appreciate you satisfying my curiosity. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
[fn1] "As a practical matter" can add meaning if it is preceded by contrasting text ("the house is such a dark brown that, as a practical matter, it is black"). But I don't see the text preceding that phrase in Consensus as setting up a contrast. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
As I said, an edit that violates consensus is a poor edit and that's a good reason to reject it. As a practical matter, "violates consensus" is a weak reason to reject a proposal. Better to explain the objection and discuss it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate you explaining what the current wording means. But my question is whether you think the current wording would say something else if we took "As a practical matter" out of it. If not then "As a practical matter" is surplusage and should be eliminated. So, again, please let me know whether you think the two sentences above have the same or different meanings. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
What I see is that the phrase does nothing in this sentence. If that is wrong then it would seem to be a fairly simple thing for you to do to tell what the phrase does do in this sentence. Despite my repeated requests, you have not done that. Instead, you just give me your unsupported conclusions ("clear," "obvious," etc.). That makes me think that you are unable to actually show any difference between the two sentences (assuming, that is, that you believe that there is a difference - I can't even tell that from your prior answers). Am I wrong? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
