User talk:Ring Cinema/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Re: No Country for Old Men (film) - Undid revision 591633596 by ClanCularius: out of place

It sounds as though you have no objection to identifying the Chigurh character as a psychopath, but you would like to see the reference placed elsewhere. I believe it belongs in this article (specifically describing the film version of No Country for Old Men) at a minimum, to provide in-article support for the categorization "Category:Films about psychopaths" found at the bottom of the page. Other WP film articles have identified characters as psychopaths in various places within the WP film article template, from the lede (e.g., Killer Housewives) to Plot (as I originally placed it on this article, for example, or as found in Kiss of Death (1947 film), Kalifornia, Bad Day on the Block, 5150 Elm's Way, Anjaam, Rest Stop (film), Visiting Hours, and others), Synopsis (e.g., Road (film)), Production (e.g., Halloween (2007 film)), Cast (e.g., The Good Son (film)), and others. There appears to be no pattern or fixed rule.

My major goal in this change is to anchor and justify the article's categorization of "Category:Films about psychopaths" by providing an explicit reference to an acceptable source, so I had not intended to add much material to the article. Meeting this goal doesn't seem to require a paragraph or even a full sentence, but I am not sure where in the article you will find it acceptable to add the brief description "psychopath" and the supporting reference. Please let me know what you had in mind - thanks for the interest and the comment. ClanCularius (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that material would fit in the section on the character. (Chigurh may have his own page, too.) For the plot summary, I feel it is better to stick to the action of the film and studiously avoid conclusions. If he is a sociopath, the evidence is in his behavior and we can squeeze as much of that into the plot section as feasible. If you believe he is a psychopath, my question for you is, How do you know? That's what belongs in the plot summary. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As I mentioned above and have discussed in more detail elsewhere, I am working to reflect recently published results of researchers analyzing the accurate (or inaccurate) depiction of psychopathic behavior by film characters. That research anchors and justifies the article's categorization of "Category:Films about psychopaths", which (in this article) was present before I initially added the reference that kicked off this discussion. The article on Anton Chigurh addresses his behavior as depicted both in the novel and in the film, and does not appear to be the right place to put the categorization "Category:Films about psychopaths". This article on the film appears to be the right place to embed the research reference.

Following your suggestion, I will place the term "psychopathic" and the appropriate reference in this article's section Cast. (I am inferring this is the place you refer to as "the section on the character".) I am not certain regarding the Wikipedia protocol for the wider application of this standard to the articles where the terms "psychopath" and "psychopathic" already appear in the lede, Plot, Synopsis, or other sections. Will you be addressing them, or is it expected that I should do so, or are they best left as they stand? Thanks for your advice. ClanCularius (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. What is the importance of labeling Chigurh a psychopath? While I can imagine that for some in the professions of mental health it is useful to have an interesting, accurate example, it doesn't seem so significant to me that the readers of this article are told that he fits a model of complex behavior that is constructed for purposes unrelated to the ostensible aims of the film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest, and I hope your question is not the type of query that would hide under bridges to commit blood crimes on yokels and their livestock.

In some very general sense you may be asking why we want an online reference mechanism that links reputable research to widely-known terms, works, and memes of popular culture. "Why does IMDb exist?" you might cry. "Wikipedia? Google, for that matter?" I would suggest that these tools evidently support some human needs or they would not consume so many of our resources in time, attention, and effort. The fact that you have mastered WP's formidable interface implies that you already support the concept of an online reference mechanism with the features just described. Your question must therefore be more subtle in its implications.

At one level, your activity in this article might imply you have already observed that the detailed descriptions of filmic characters provide a continual stream of interest and entertainment for film watchers. Just to pick the nearest example, the Goldfinger article mentions many filmic character traits apart from psychopathy that may interest one or more Wikipedia readers: Goldfinger is wealthy - is a man - is obsessed with gold; Mr. Simmons is gullible; Tilly Masterson is vengeful.

Looking more deeply into your question, perhaps you are wondering why these characteristics are mentioned in the WP article. Why is it written that Goldfinger is wealthy, implied to be successful at some capital-generating enterprise (however criminal), and therefore exhibiting complex behavior that some might claim is constructed for purposes unrelated to the ostensible aims of the film? Who has documented the ostensible aims of the film, that we may solve this conundrum? Why, in any constructed discourse, should it be said that Goldfinger loves . . . gold? Deep questions, indeed, though - to a simple film fan, for example - perhaps irrelevant or unnecessary.

Even deeper, why do other characters have their own personal characteristics, in this or any work of popular media? Why do characters have unique names? Why do characters even exist? At the risk of oversimplifying a potentially rich and wide-ranging discussion of fiction, meta-narrative, and the post-modern meaning of "meaning", I conjecture in general that fans of the genre or of popular culture in the greater sense demand this sort of content from the media they consume (both the original source media, i.e., the film Goldfinger, and secondary or tertiary sources like reviews, scholarly papers, and Wikipedia). Needless to say, I cannot answer for you in particular.

There is an hypothetical "I" that self-identifies as an amateur of cinema. I watch well over 400 films a year. I am deeply interested in films, books, and printed graphic works containing representations of mystery, suspense, action, violence, and evil. In these characteristics, I am not alone - that is, I represent a cohort, not insignificant in size, of the popular media consumer. Is it really a mystery that I am likewise interested in the nature of the characters I watch every night? That I want to know why they act as they do? That I am curious about the authenticity of a director's vision or of an actor's interpretation of the script? That I wonder whether real people like the ones depicted actually exist, and actually behave as depicted? My real and representative interests alone may answer your question.

On a slightly less post-modern note, the research paper earlier referenced was discussed at the local university's faculty club last weekend. It was immediately apparent that the list of films chosen by the researchers was skewed or incomplete in significant ways. I raised from memory ten or more films of the last fifteen years from Korea, Japan, and south-east Asia that were better suited for this sort of study than many of the films originally selected by the researchers. Someone else wondered at the poor showing of Hong Kong or mainland Chinese films on my list and on the list defined by the original researchers: is there a cultural or other bias at work on the part of the researchers, or are the involved film-makers avoiding psychopathic characters for reasons yet unknown?

It became my responsibility to find other candidate films for further formal or informal research, so I came to WP for leads. It is clear that the adjective "psychopathic" and the noun "psychopath" are much more liberally interpreted on Wikipedia than the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, in Hare's PCL-R test for psychopathy, or in related professional tools. Many filmic characters displaying clear and consistent traits of psychopathy, such as Auric Goldfinger in this film, are not identified as psychopathic in WP. Many other filmic characters, including some explicitly rejected by the researchers for displaying inauthentic or no characteristics of this mental condition, are labeled psychopathic. I felt that Someone was Wrong on the Internet.

As a predictable but unfortunate result, I came to believe that some users of WP exhibit a curious "psycho-blindness", to coin a novel and quite unnecessary term. They disbelieve and reject incoming information that suggests their preconceptions about psychopathic behavior, richly and inaccurately fed by WP itself, may be inconsistent with formally completed, reviewed, and published scientific research. I find this sad, yet I believe it's somehow avoidable. Surely there must be a way to clarify the meaning and implications of these scientific terms, perhaps in reference to works of popular culture that are widely accessible and may even be familiar to the WP users in question. More complete and more accurate information on psychopaths in film might help in some way! But where can we put it?

To wrap up, and again in reference to your question, I suspect you know where we can put it. I hope you can agree that someone is interested in almost any type of information, and that in the inclusive universe of the Web it may be worthwhile meeting that need. Structuring the discourse to satisfy the varied and sometimes incomprehensible interests of other humans may be challenging, but is ultimately worthwhile. A life, or even a half-hour, documenting something of interest to someone is conspicuously more valuable to the Web than one spent in protocoloholic gateclosing.

I cannot myself comfortably take on a role as gatecloser, to campaign that the Web be purged of references to items I personally don't find interesting, reducing its size and general usefulness by a trillion times. I respect the nature and choices of others in this regard and humbly suggest that if someone is so interested as to learn Wikipedia's crappy editing UI, to grasp however feebly the mass of written and unwritten rules of combat, to research content, and to overcome WP's many other barriers against entry, then the benefit of my doubt is their freedom to document those areas of the universe that they find interesting. I hope I have not, in making this response, alienated or offended you. And I hope that you understand my answer to your question. ClanCularius (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. You are correct that WP offers information to readers, but not exactly spot on that designations of 'psychopath' applied to fictional characters share the same epistemological status as the rest of its material. The film can be understood equally, it seems, with or without determining Chigurh's clinical condition. In fact, if no one had said anything about his "diagnosis", the story retains all of its values, and if in the future there is a debate among professionals about whether or not he is a psychopath that leads to widespread agreement that he is not, none of the fictional elements of the film are changed. No one in the film responds to Chigurh qua psychopath. However, nothing could change the fact that the film is set in Texas, even if the state was annexed by Australia and renamed "New Outback". So, a plot summary should say what happens in the film and psychopathology is not a subject of the film or an element in the plot. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of article editing and justifications : THE ENGLISH PATIENT

I believe these changes are in line with both the efforts of W. for appropriate article content that best presents the intent of the subject and should it be found they do not meet standards then I will take the issue up with the review board in order to get a better understanding as to just what role do individuals serve in this effort.

ORIGINAL: In the final days of World War II, Hana, a French-Canadian nurse in an abandoned Italian monastery looks after a critically burned man who speaks English but is reluctant to disclose any personal information.

REPLACEMENT: World War II waning finds the French-Canadian Hana nursing, in a bombed Italian monastery, a critically burned English-speaking man avoiding disclosure of personal information.

JUSTIFICATION:

Waning means coming to an end and adequately sets the war time frame in five words instead of the eight.

"Abandoned" does not adequately convey the monastery's condition. It was abandoned, yes, but the uncertain safety of it, which may very well be a reason for it being people less, better conveys by being described as bombed which can convey also that the site was not safe therefore people less. Even Hana is warned of marauders when taking on the task. "Nursing" conveys both what she is doing and most likely her role in the war and eliminates "looks after" which is an aspect of nursing.

"Critically burned English-speaking man" conveys with less words than "a critically burned man who speaks English" The use of "but" implies that being "a critically burned man who speaks English" is the reasoning behind "is reluctant to disclose any personal information." It is not. He could have other reasons: trauma memory loss, embarrassment, a personal preference? Also, "avoiding disclosure of personal information" says in five what the original says in seven words.A1Houseboy (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1Houseboy (talk • contribs)

We can discuss this on the talk page. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI, see User talk:A1Houseboy#Third Opinion and The English Patient talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:The English Patient (film)". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 11:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Unusual phrases from four editors

A1Houseboy: "Did any one block the meaning of those three words from being used to clarify the understanding that the "burned man" and the "dashing archaeologist" were the same. The answer is no by the potential solutions to be found stated in the Discussion section." [1]

SharpQuillPen: "Personally, not knowing all the little details one might when you grow up in a particular environment learn, there is a lot that is need to become familiar in order to get a better understand as to how to place what happens in the film with real life since there are some scenes that all you know is that they followed in the film but you do not know during when so you just have to accept on nuance." [2]

WordwrightUSA: "Mastery seems to be a perception that you hold high your craft of composition but evidently that mastery doers not include the means by which your characterizations are expressed for nullification. Please attempt by all means possible the absence of what can only truly and accurately be attributed your own attitude towards things that make it an avenue by which you to exhibit." [3]

LimeyCinema1960: "Is it crucial in the development of this article that a preliminary draft of an independent and probably on their own effort produced dialogue transcript of the released film have have a typo identified? Talk about inconsequential and maybe a pathological obsession with asserting some sense of perceived authority working on behalf of the group based on what that person accepts as either correct or incorrect. This comes from me because i am attempting to understand the dynamics and reiterate in my mind every time that some "decision" comes down from Almighty." [4]

Stylometric comparison, anyone? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Curious.
Curiosity (from Latin curiosus "careful, diligent, curious," akin to cura "care") is a quality related to inquisitive thinking such as exploration, investigation, and learning, evident by observation in human and many animal species. The term can also be used to denote the behaviour itself being caused by the emotion of curiosity. As this emotion represents a thirst for knowledge, curiosity is a major driving force behind scientific research and other disciplines of human study.— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 14:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Plot citations

Thanks for your note about referencing plots. I have an editor who keeps reverting my plots due to "lack of citation". And apparently, I don't know how to correctly report this person, with a history of complaints, so they warned ME instead. Le Sigh. I guess I should just curb my urge to help Wiki in any way.Zabadu (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Look at WP:filmplot, Zabadu. It says it word for word. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm Dwpaul. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Annie Hall without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Dwpaul ^Talk 04:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I believe I have explained all my changes. Where are you looking? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit

I have "No Country" on my DVD at this moment. The motel rooms do not connect. The article now says the rooms connect. "Connecting rooms" means connected by a door, so I clarified the point. My edit was correct, your revert and edit summary is wrong, fellow editor. Presumably we both admire the movie and want to see the article improved. Your thoughts? Jusdafax 06:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand why you prefer your text. However, factually, the rooms connect through the vents. This text has been viewed many times by many editors over a long period of time and you are the first to mention an objection. Of course, I agree your draft spells things out in more detail and isn't wrong, but a lot of effort went into making the word count guideline and many details have been dropped. I hope you understand it's nothing against your edit, really, but if there were details I would restore, this isn't where I would begin. It's a relatively minor point. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps to you the point is minor. It is also wrong. "Connecting rooms" gives the impression you can walk from one room to the other. I well understand the requirements of the word count guideline, so rather than add anything I'll try a few deletions. As it is, it's confusing. Jusdafax 06:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No one else has registered a complaint but I am in favor of anything that improves the article. In fact, it is a minor point. In fact, the rooms are connected. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This time I was able to both trim and clarify. See what you think. Jusdafax 07:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for thanking me. However, another editor has seen fit to revert me, and this one is quite rude in my view. Frankly, I am taken aback. Jusdafax 07:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely that the rooms can be reached through a common door. they are only adjacent: http://www.miramax.com/watch?v=51bzVuYTr3oN7D02wHbG7DAPD-FDemqj

If the lying in wait scene with him sitting on the bed is of the adjacent room then it clearly shows the lack of a "connecting" door. Usually, when it comes to mechanicals and building structure such as air ducts and walls and foundation the term "share in common" denotes something that is in some way applicable to two places.76.170.88.72 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Annie Hall

I've barely touched anything you've written and have mostly embellished it and added new content. I only changed one thing back and that was the beginning of style which reads a little awkwardly and the scholarly criticism which wasn't really criticism and really belongs in the themes. The article as it stands now will pass GA please trust me on this and try not to see my work on it in a negative light. I can't have you aggressively reacting to the few changes I've made. I have a reviewer in mind who I think would be happy to review it. I think given the work you've put into this it's about time you were rewarded for your efforts on this and have renommed now. Can you add a citation for "Allen wrote a first draft of a screenplay within a four-day period, sending it to Brickman to make alterations." though? Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

3RR

You have reverted the casting section FOUR TIMES. You are showing way too much ownership of the article and if you revert that section once more (making a fifth revert) I'll happily report you. - SchroCat (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Unusual style from a fifth editor

A1Houseboy: "Did any one block the meaning of those three words from being used to clarify the understanding that the "burned man" and the "dashing archaeologist" were the same. The answer is no by the potential solutions to be found stated in the Discussion section." [1]

SharpQuillPen: "Personally, not knowing all the little details one might when you grow up in a particular environment learn, there is a lot that is need to become familiar in order to get a better understand as to how to place what happens in the film with real life since there are some scenes that all you know is that they followed in the film but you do not know during when so you just have to accept on nuance." [2]

WordwrightUSA: "Mastery seems to be a perception that you hold high your craft of composition but evidently that mastery doers not include the means by which your characterizations are expressed for nullification. Please attempt by all means possible the absence of what can only truly and accurately be attributed your own attitude towards things that make it an avenue by which you to exhibit." [3]

LimeyCinema1960: "Is it crucial in the development of this article that a preliminary draft of an independent and probably on their own effort produced dialogue transcript of the released film have have a typo identified? Talk about inconsequential and maybe a pathological obsession with asserting some sense of perceived authority working on behalf of the group based on what that person accepts as either correct or incorrect. This comes from me because i am attempting to understand the dynamics and reiterate in my mind every time that some "decision" comes down from Almighty." [4]

76.170.88.72: "A writer would not be a writer unless something acted as an inspiration for rather than lifted from the work(s) of others so ambiguous would be the normal state of things identifying the inspiration and iconic phrase. The problem with so much of comment in the past is that everyone is willing to say Balzac/inspiration but no one identifies the place within that source from which to come to a conclusion. If each day of one's life had to start out with determining just what was meant by, "In the beginning there was light......" then we would probably not get much past the scratches and dots in the dirt to represent ones thoughts. The Big Bang only has to happen once; then we can move on. As for "title and "wrong", if that is a commentary on some "source" saying that it is to be found in Chapt. A and the translation says Chapt. A.B then just maybe the format in one language can be different in the other or possibly by what a particular publisher's style may decide.76.170.88.72 (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)"

Stylometric comparison, anyone? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hope you're not insinuating sockpuppets again without filing and SPI, RC. You were warned about such activity not too long ago. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ring Cinema--You are a genius! You have found us out--an alien outer space life form that has up until now hid out among the people of earth. You alone would have been needed to prevent 9/11 and the Malaysian airplane crash. I hope the National Security Council has you on direct dial. May we now return to our enjoyment of contributing to WP instead of this pathological display of ????????. Don't tell me, it was the "QUERTY" board use that gave us away? I hope all the others that you have accused of being sock puppets are not disappointed by their absence on this "list".76.170.88.72 (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You think this is evidence of sock puppets? Why do you say that? --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's evidence of you stirring up trouble when you've been told previously to either stop or file and SPI. I think it's evidence of you accusing editors of sockpuppetry as a result of sour grapes, RC. But that's me. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sock puppetry? Let me make it as perfectly clear as possible even to the point of being repetitious; that is your delusion. If you are under a doctor's care, please follow that treatment as prescribed and if you are not PLEASE seek it out. If any one in the WP community should have direct personal contact with RING CINEMA please see to it that the person is not in danger of physically harming oneself. THIS IS NOT A JOKE. I hope that it is nothing more than a bipolar episode that under proper care can avert more serious consequences.76.170.88.72 (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't bring it up, you did. Why did you mention it after reading these five examples? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

If you are attempting to pick a fight or drag another person into your quarrels then you had been find someone else that has had less interaction with you. You seem to believe that any one's actions on WP are independent and unaware to any others when in fact, as I would believe you to be aware, of coming across information of all types when clicking on the various buttons on each WP page. If one makes a contribution/change to ANY WK page it will show SOMEWHERE in the system. It does not take a rocket scientist to read what is going on in WP and particular people. Any article that I click on has a history. It includes the names of those that have contributed even if all that the effort is nothing but or always reverting others. You can then go to the contributions of that person or their talk page and then from there to the articles or other pages that have contributions from ANYONE. It is not espionage; it is not surveillance and it is not some form of paranoia -- It is just the way WP is set. That is why, regardless of the relative anonymity what is of the interest that especially here in the community of WP to act and behave respectfully of others. This statement is not an opener for you to throw bad additional tirades; but you will, without good reasonable because it is just your nature. I am not going to change it; and most probably others will not be able to change it, but you most probably pay for it as has been exhibited by the recent exchange with the other article that has been to that effect with the sudden cessation to your WP activity) if even with the price of a reputation of charity and compassion that you may have had. Are all WP contributors to be put on your list of potential suspects of sock puppetry merely for using the Latin alphabet since there are some commonality to be found in most any sample of writing especially if you use "." "?" "!" "," ":" ";" 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9? If you cannot seem to get the humor from that, which seems to be what was not achieved with the QUERTY and the NSA, then ...... What seems to be common in your actions is that you perceive that something has been taken from you. I do not care what is that "something" because I never took ANYTHING away from you yet you persist in attempting to regain this "SOMETHING" from me and everyone else that seems to have been the aim of your attentions. Drop this perceived slight and at least the squabble disappears from the pages of WP. Then all the other that has been lost might be found.76.170.88.72 (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about sock puppets. Why did you? --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

What?Taikomochiyarichin (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Unusual style from a fifth editor

A1Houseboy: "Did any one block the meaning of those three words from being used to clarify the understanding that the "burned man" and the "dashing archaeologist" were the same. The answer is no by the potential solutions to be found stated in the Discussion section." [1]

SharpQuillPen: "Personally, not knowing all the little details one might when you grow up in a particular environment learn, there is a lot that is need to become familiar in order to get a better understand as to how to place what happens in the film with real life since there are some scenes that all you know is that they followed in the film but you do not know during when so you just have to accept on nuance." [2]

WordwrightUSA: "Mastery seems to be a perception that you hold high your craft of composition but evidently that mastery doers not include the means by which your characterizations are expressed for nullification. Please attempt by all means possible the absence of what can only truly and accurately be attributed your own attitude towards things that make it an avenue by which you to exhibit." [3]

LimeyCinema1960: "Is it crucial in the development of this article that a preliminary draft of an independent and probably on their own effort produced dialogue transcript of the released film have have a typo identified? Talk about inconsequential and maybe a pathological obsession with asserting some sense of perceived authority working on behalf of the group based on what that person accepts as either correct or incorrect. This comes from me because i am attempting to understand the dynamics and reiterate in my mind every time that some "decision" comes down from Almighty." [4]

76.170.88.72: "A writer would not be a writer unless something acted as an inspiration for rather than lifted from the work(s) of others so ambiguous would be the normal state of things identifying the inspiration and iconic phrase. The problem with so much of comment in the past is that everyone is willing to say Balzac/inspiration but no one identifies the place within that source from which to come to a conclusion. If each day of one's life had to start out with determining just what was meant by, "In the beginning there was light......" then we would probably not get much past the scratches and dots in the dirt to represent ones thoughts. The Big Bang only has to happen once; then we can move on. As for "title and "wrong", if that is a commentary on some "source" saying that it is to be found in Chapt. A and the translation says Chapt. A.B then just maybe the format in one language can be different in the other or possibly by what a particular publisher's style may decide.76.170.88.72 (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)"

Stylometric comparison, anyone? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The Godfather Part II

As per WP:MOSFILM, we include the gross of a film in the article's infobox, not the adjusted gross. If you have a reliable source that states the worldwide gross for this particular film, feel free to add it to the article, otherwise we can only include the domestic (North American) gross. Please familiarise yourself with WP:MOSFILM before you make further edits. Thank you. 88.104.22.45 (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't use the domestic gross. That is where I differ with you. If you have a source with the international gross, please use it. Otherwise, the domestic gross adjusted is superior. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at The Godfather Part II shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
For guidelines relating to this article in particular, please refer to WP:MOSFILM for clarification. L@zloFeelo^t@lk 17:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No edit war. I am following BRD and the other editor is trying to make the change. Please correct the record. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. L@zloFeelo^t@lk 20:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at The Godfather Part II. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{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 ^talk 18:26, 29 April 2014 (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).

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, and is blatant edit warring. Tiptoety ^talk 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 Wikipedia policy under WP:Edit warring". Tiptoety ^talk 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 Wikipedia. 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)

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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ring_Cinema reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: ). Thank you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent edit warring. You have repeatedly been blocked for edit warring since July 2011, this being the eighth time. I cannot imagine why your recent blocks were so short: after so many blocks for the same thing you should by now be being given the message that you cannot keep on getting away with edit warring, and be willing to accept occasional blocks for a few days as the cost of doing so. If you continue to edit war, you may expect to be blocked for much longer, perhaps indefinitely. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{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)

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).

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 ^雲_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 ^雲_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 ^雲_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)

I'm personally awaiting your response at the ANI mentioned below - right now, it doesn't look good the panda ₯’ 22:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this some kind of stealth harassment? We were instructed to bring it to the talk page and there is an ongoing discussion there. I sincerely hope you're not another admin who doesn't understand the consensus policy, so before you make that mistake, I would suggest you read the section on "No Consensus". I'm engaged in good faith edits of a very inaccurate editor. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.