Misplaced Pages

• Talk
• Sockpuppet investigations
• Backlog

I have now edited my complaint to a short version, I have added an addendum of a longer version if you are interested in the details:

I realised The Godfather needed to be improved for details and chronological flow was missing. Ring-Cinema had also been editing it for some time. My plot draft included more words, but even though later I trimmed plot to 700 to better reflect WP:PLOT, changes were reverted with absolutely no good reason.

Previous version reverted to: Version before I officially began improving plot to better reflect film after watching it recently.

• 1st revert: Complete revert of my work, I reverted it back here and told him to discuss on talk page.
• 2nd revert: reverts back immediately rather than going to talk page and tells me to bring draft to talk page and discuss. His double standards only begin here. I bring draft to talk page, he replaces it with article version. After wards I manage to make a copy on the talk page and edit improvements from there with another User:Gareth Griffith-Jones, making us 3 editors. As you can see from the editing history, he is clearly going for brevity rather than anything else, even sacrificing an improved plot. AT this point anyway, because as mentioned much later I cut it down to a lower word count than the current version and he still wouldn't accept.Note the talk page history , by 11:56, 19 April 2012‎.

• 3rd revert: and proceeds to make his tiny changes,

none of these are improvements. After confronting him on the talk page, the fact that the plot was more improved, concise yet included all details with flow, I added it again in the article this time, using this description for my edit, as the plot and edit actually conformed to this description

Well well well:

• 4th revert: Again, rejected by whom? him of course.

It appears he is violating WP:OWN, WP:EW, WP:DE and TE, possibly WP:SPA (his name). If that does not seal the deal, notice how I have not placed a warning on his page. Because he has already received not only warnings, but a one week block for the same activity some time ago. Carefully read through his talk and archives here and here as well as his block log.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Links provided above and below.

Detailed version (Read if extra details necessary)

Initially I began editing the article plot for brevity, but after watching the film recently a week ago, I realised it needed to be improved for details and chronological flow was missing. Ring-Cinema had also been editing it for some time. I would advise to open links one at a time to avoid confusion. My plot draft included more words, but as you will see later, even though I trimmed plot to 700 to better reflect WP:PLOT, changes were reverted with absolutely no good reason.

• 1st revert: Complete revert of my work, I reverted it back here and told him to discuss on talk page.
• 2nd revert: reverts back immediately rather than going to talk page and tells me to bring draft to talk page and discuss. His double standards only begin here. As you can see from the editing history, he is clearly going for brevity rather than anything else, even sacrificing an improved plot. AT this point anyway, because as mentioned much later I cut it down to a lower word count than the current version and he still wouldn't accept. Anyway, at the time I discuss at the talk page citing Inception and Mulholland Drive as having longer than 700 words due to editor consensus but improved plots as a result. Note the first paragraph of Inception, which introduces concepts in the film. Following this model I placed the draft on the talk page introducing characters in the first paragraph to get the confusion out of the way. I admit I do not leave edit summaries due to rush of editing. Note the talk page history , by 11:56, 19 April 2012‎.

At this time User:Gareth Griffith-Jones, another established editor of this article, joins and help me edit the draft, as well accepting the task I have placed forth. Him and I edit together, but see this Ring replaces mine and Gareth's plot on the talk page with the exact copy of the article plot. Calling it "the best current draft". I confront him over this as you can see on the talk page several times .

To avoid conflict, I placed two drafts on the page, mine and Gareth’s collaboration, and the version he wishes. . However, I later merged them incorporating the changes he wanted, and miraculously, making it 700 words rather than 750ish which it was. The plot now has the correct year (1945) when the story begins, and all characters etc. . I and Gareth discuss repeatedly on our talk pages, which you can see. User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones User talk:JTBX

Now look at this ridiculous nonsense. He states "other editors" but which, the only editors editing the plot are me Gareth and him, and if taken into account how regularly then only me and Gareth. If a consensus means anything on Misplaced Pages, 2 vs 1 pretty much seals it, plus the fact I incorporated his changes. When the plot was above 750 words, he had at least one leg to stand on, but now he has no reason at all and this reply was unwarranted. , I had not only incorporated improvements, but made the plot 700 words.

, check it out, even though he originally wanted "brevity" he accuses me of leaving out information (specifically that Vito wanted better of Michael rather than join the Mafia) I deem superficial, even though (here's the kicker), that information was already in my plot, but better placed on a later paragraph, when it happens in the film. He obviously has not been reading my plot all this time, and has been caught with his pants down playing his usual semantics game. Either that or (jokes) English isn't his first language.

And the fact that he kept the article stating the plot begins in 1946, when it is an obvious fact the plot of Godfather begins in 1945 and Gareth backed me up on this .

Seeing a practical go ahead from Gareth, who stated that he agreed and liked our version better (again read all of this), I added it to the article. But of course:

• 3rd revert: and proceeds to make his tiny changes,

none of these are improvements. After confronting him on the talk page, the fact that the plot was more improved, concise yet included all details with flow, I added it again in the article this time as a test to see if he would revert it again, using this description for my edit, as the plot and edit actually conformed to that description

Well well well:

• 4th revert: Again, rejected by whom? him of course.

Gareth does not want to have a conflict and has edited the article going along with Ring since, but I have abstained until this is finalised. I wish for a temporary block because I simply cannot edit the plot without him reverting it.

Comments:
As a side note, If any of you have watched Godfather, please read the plot in the article, and the plot on the talk page. You make up your mind which is better and which has the larger word count. I sincerely do not know what he wants or wishes to prove with this, but is an obstacle to any improvement of a quality plot for the article. --JTBX (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

JTBX has made suggestions for the plot summary. I have agreed with some and not agreed with others. I incorporated many of his suggestions and proposed areas where we are in agreement and further changes would seem productive. Gareth and I have a good relationship with plenty of give and take and there is nothing false about our collaboration as he has suggested. On Gareth's talk page, he tells JTBX that he "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) 14:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)" JTBX has been invited to contribute on the talk page of the article and his concerns have been addressed. For example, he thought that the city of New York should be mentioned in the plot summary; I agreed and found a very smart place to include it. He thought last week that we should include information about the years of the action of the film but there was information from Gareth that JTBX's information was inaccurate; only today we have cleared that up. There are many details but I won't waste time with that tedium.

What is happening is that we are engaging in the give and take of trying to find ways to change the article for the better. As it happens, my recent changes are as often as not an effort to incorporate his suggestions into the plot summary. Sometimes he takes my suggestions, sometimes he doesn't. I think that is a normal way to collaborate. If he wants to discuss on the talk page, he will find that there will be views exchanged and he will be heard. That's how it should be and that's how it is with me. If he is upset that not all of his ideas were endorsed by others, I think he has an unreasonable expectation. As I mentioned to him already, I think he has good ideas and I am happy about his contributions. I'm not happy about this action, but nobody's perfect. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You can dress it up that way if you like, but written words and actions are totally different things. Do not fall for this nonsense, he writes well and so on to give this image, but his block log and interaction with others as can be seen by this page, is another thing. If I improved the plot, both by shortening the word count and by incorporating extra details, you have no right to revert without good reason (which as I stress, you have not, only that YOU don't accept it). The plot of my draft is 700 words, the plot in the article as a result of conservative reverts to keep that way on your part, again I stress for no reason, is 750 words and is a mess flow wise. Gareth can be thrown about between us and you must be cackling but I feel bad because he and I only want to improve it but you want ownership. I have been through many reverts for plot articles time and time again all provided with good reason from editors for me to accept, yours, frankly does not. It should be considered why I would take time to even bring up and write this complaint. A permanent block would be necessary, a temporary block would be fine though as you have experience of that. JTBX (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You are complaining because you don't like my edits, even though I have accepted many of your suggestions. Each time I reverted you, I immediately returned to adopt as much of your language as I agreed with. Then I found other places to put in the material that I agreed with you should be incorporated. I think you should have mentioned that in your complaint. So that is how the give and take works. You proposed many changes, I accepted some. I proposed a change that I think you accepted, too. That's how it goes. I agreed with you that we should take up the matter of Michael's transformation. Instead, you just returned everything to your previous proposal. And I asked you again to work with the other editors. But if you think that means all your proposals will be accepted, that is not a reasonable expectation. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(Laughter) Really? "You are complaining because you don't like my edits, even though I have accepted many of your suggestions." Let me just say, you cannot actually believe that. A total falsehood. It's the other way around, I incorporated your suggestions into the draft plot as a result of compromise and cut down the words, it is you who keeps reverting it and placing very very tiny changes. You in fact, did not add most of the changes I asked for, but thats the point, I shouldn't have to ask you. You do not own the article. And as faras changes ago you didn't introduce anything to the plot at all. You simply revert and (maybe) add in something I have suggested. But you don't own it, again I stress.

Just look at what he wrote above, here's the quote : "For example, he thought that the city of New York should be mentioned in the plot summary; I agreed and found a very smart place to include it." So I have to ask permission from him? He owns the article, my improvement must be reverted wholesale and put back in later by him?

"He thought last week that we should include information about the years of the action of the film but there was information from Gareth that JTBX's information was inaccurate; only today we have cleared that up." Correction, it took over two days to "clear up", it was hardly a clear up because as you are too scared to mention, I was right the first time and Gareth backed me up, when Gareth it states in the novel the year is 1945, you tried to weasel your way out of it (read Godfather talk page). Two editors (me and Gareth) with correct information shouldn't have to wait two days for you to "approve", but then of course, to revert once we add it.

You do not leave messages on the talk page regarding your edits, once we edit, you should coem to the talk page and discuss it, but the fact is me and Gareth agreed to that plot and added it, you don't but you simply revert.

"There are many details but I won't waste time with that tedium. " Exactly.

You are the only editor I have come across, and many others I presume have come across looking at your behaviour for over 3 years, to be this adamant and to flagrantly violate all the relevant policies. Again, you are warring and your reverts are not justified. You do this on purpose to annoy people for no reason. No reason. End of story. Block. JTBX (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You are accusing me of bad faith; that's over the line. At the risk of repeating myself, when I reverted you I then went back and included as many of your suggestions as I agreed with. Then I invited you to discuss it, which is normal behavior. Yes, I then followed up with some small changes because, as I mentioned to you, it is better to make small changes and see if they are accepted. This is a good practice for Misplaced Pages. Your words suggest that you think you have carte blanche to change the article; on the contrary, other editors have a say about your edits. That is why you were asked to work with us by both me and Gareth, consistent with policy. Everyone is edited on Misplaced Pages. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(I should mention that your recounting of the 1945/46 dispute is inaccurate. I don't know why you deny it, but it was unclear which date was correct until today. Yes, you said 45, I pointed out to you that Gareth said 46 and today Gareth confirmed that you were right. So what is your problem there?) --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You reverted me multiple times, as I have proven here, even when I improved the article. I edited with consensus from Gareth, but we had to wait for you because we knew you wouldn't accept in light of your recent reverts. Bad faith is a light way of putting it, but its rich that you would say I was accusing you of it. It is only me, you and Gareth actively editing the plot. The small changes you placed are void, because

• 1. They consist of slight trimmings of a 750 plot, even though my plot was 700 words which you keep reverting.
• 2. The details you did add were put forth by me and Gareth after literally arguing over it with you and after you revert my edits, so in affect what we have is you reverting my edits, then taking the ideas that do sit with you and adding it to the plot, though not accomplishing anything because the plot I have put forth adds missing details, chronologically flows and is 700 words. What more could you ask for. But you don't ask for anything, just keep reverting solely by yourself. Gareth is a neutral party who does not want you to be blocked because he's just too nice. But that doesn't matter, fairness and upholding Misplaced Pages policy matters. You are being unfair, and an obstacle to improving the article for yourr own ego. But you've heard this a thousand times before, because of numerous blocks and confrontations with adminstrators dating back 2009. Some people never learn.

"I should mention that your recounting of the 1945/46 dispute is inaccurate. I don't know why you deny it, but it was unclear which date was correct until today. Yes, you said 45, I pointed out to you that Gareth said 46 and today Gareth confirmed that you were right. So what is your problem there?" It was clear the date was 1945 from the beginning, from factual internet searches, the novel plot and the introduction to the article itself (impossible to ignore unless you are a troll such as yourself). Gareth watched the VHS he has and proved me correct then days later backed it up with the novel. But you still didnt accept (see talk page) until now. Through persistence. Nice try but if anyone is reading this with open eyes they can see through your falsifications. Again I do not have time to waste with this clear troll who has been pushed into a corner with two templates here calling for his block. End his ridiculous charade so that real editors can get to work instead of wasting our precious time. JTBX (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a good example of the problem. The novel is not a source for the plot summary of the movie, but you don't know that. To know the year the film starts, the film must be consulted, in case they changed it from the novel. Gareth did that today or yesterday. So now we know. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

So when Gareth consults the film/novel its some how acceptable (because you want to have good relations with him to use him), but when I, for over a week, have been stressing the same thing with many other improvements (that Gareth has helped me with because clearly you do not know what consensus means as you have demonstrated so elementarily here haha), it is not. Again, nice try. Keep digging your own grave. This won't end the way you would like. JTBX (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)