User talk:CassanovaFrankenstein

August 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Lady Magdalene's. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Alexf(talk) 19:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Edit war with the Director of the movie...
Hello Alex

I received a warning about "edit war" yesterday and realized my folly and stopped editing the page. But some background info. I stumbled across the page for the movie a couple of days ago and noticed that the page was overly gushing, almost reading like a promotion ad and that the layout needed some fixing up. The page was clearly not objective, mentioning none of the negative sides of the movie, aggrandizing the awards it had won (in some cases there aren't even any sources that it won the award, and looking at the awards official page, there is no mention of the movie) even having direct links to where you could buy the movie. So I fixed the layout as much as I could, removed unnecessary praise, added IMDB ratings, pointed out that the Amazon score was only based on 7 reviews(of which one was made by the director, so the rest was probably fake considering very few have seen the movie and most of them were 5 star ratings), added info I found about the ebay auction etc.

Then I noticed that somebody had undid all my changes, and when I looked at the user, I realized it was the Director of the movie! I'll admit, that pissed me off, seeing how the director of the movie used wikipedia as some kind of personal advertisement board, so I just reverted his changes, and on we went. I know I should open a dialogue with him, but it seems pointless since he obviously wants to promote his movie and didn't talk to me when he undid my changes.

So, is the director of a movie allowed to edit the page of his own movie? I also noticed that somebody else jumped in and edited now but it isn't me(I guess you can check the ip), so I'm guessing it's somebody else who got wind of his promotion methods on IMDB(he caused quite a stir there on some boards).

I noticed that the director(Jneil) finally stopped now to vandalize the layout(he just rolled back my changes the first times) and also added a picture. That's good. He also deleted his review on Amazon. But there are still some errors:

- He claims he won the Cinema City International Film Festival Award. There is no source for that, or any mention of this movie winning the award on their page.

- Makes the Anthem Film Festival Award look more important than it is(when it's actually just a 150-50 dollar cash prize with five recipients).

- He claims it got a positive mention in Beverly Hills Outlook, when it's not even a review but a very short interview with the main star of the movie.

- The Rotten Tomatoes review is from a user on their forum, I don't think that qualifies as a review, anybody could have written it.

- He claims the movie got a positive mention in the Santa Monica Mirror, but there is no proof of that, the link just goes to the newspapers first page, not to an article.

- He encourages readers to continue to the "buzz page" of the movie where they can read hand picked reviews and info.

- He claims that just cause the movie got bad ratings on IMDB it was hacked and the IMDB-rating is fake.

- He completely removed the section about the Ebay-auction(which gained the movie some attention in the press).

Sorry for the long message and starting a "wiki war" but it just gets to me when people uses wikipedia for dishonest promotion campaigns like this. I also noticed that he has written most of his biography as well(and no surprise, it reads like a puff piece he took from his promotion page...). Is that really permitted? I thought it was over the line to edit your own movie, but writing your own wikipedia page about yourself?
 * If there's vandalism then the user could be blocked. What I saw was disagreement and edit warring. This requires discussion. There's a Dispute Resolution process you can use if you want. If the use has a conflict of interest then mark it so in the article. -- Alexf(talk) 10:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Added: There is also a Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Oh, I see he was discussed there in May 2010. -- Alexf(talk) 11:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So you noticed that there is an interest of conflict? There is nothing you can do about that? If you look at my examples above, you will see that the director is clearly trying to promote the movie here, making it look in a better light than the movie is. Suppressing all negative facts about the movie(or claim it's a hacker attack, when you look at the trailer for the movie, it clearly isn't a very well made movie) and making the positive aspects of it look bigger. The positive reviews are user reviews, or not reviews at all, or he doesn't even support any source for his claims. I doubt there will be any use for me to discuss it with him, since he meets any critique about being not partial with hostility and thinks it ok to promote his work on wikipedia as he does. But I'll give it a try. If you look at my points, all of them are facts that can be backed up. And he still removes them, and he adds his own slant with facts without sources.

Sorry to bother you again, but after trying to use the discussion page on Lady Magdalene's, he just called me a troll and sock puppet(cause I haven't edited any other articles, although I don't see the logic there since everybody have to start somewhere, and yes, I thought the article was that bad that I signed on for just editing it...), he didn't provide any sources for the claims he made or addressed my points and just reverted my edits. After seeing he has already been discussed before for self-promotion and that he mostly just edit articles he's connected to, I really don't have the patience or time to go head to head with him. My unfamiliarity with wikipedias guidelines, UI and etiquette(as you must have noticed) makes it really hard for me to communicate here. So should I just drop it and let him do whatever he wants with "his" pages or can you do anything about it? CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't follow it, as it is not in my already too big a list, but if he is nasty, you should, revert, warn and if it continues, report it to either the vandalism board, or the Admin incidents board. Personal attacks are not acceptable. As for the article, nobody owns them so you are free to work on it. If he does self-promotion, you can revert and warn, then again report it to administrators (at the boards, not an individual admin who may or may not be logging in periodically). -- Alexf(talk) 00:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply! Thing is, I just wanted to edit an article, not become involved in a war. Just wanted to pass along the choir to someone else. And my problem isn't that he calls me a troll or sock(couldn't care less, he seems to react hostile to anybody who criticizes him) but that the article is edited by somebody biased, and he keeps reverting any changes to it. Is the the vandalism board(says I have to repeatedly warn him, which I don't have any patience for either), or the Admin incidents board the appropriate boards for that kind of thing? Sorry to bother you again and I'll promise I'll stop after this last message if you could just point me to the place to go and voice my concern and then leave in peace. Cheers. CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean as I don't have the time either (certainly not today). Mention the same spiel at WP:ANI. I'll take a look at his contributions tomorrow (it's late here). If he does not follow the rules he will be warned and maybe blocked if warranted. What we do as volunteer admins, is mostly protect the project. He certainly does not own the article or any article for that matter. We are all encouraged, and requested, to assume good faith but that can only go so far. Thanks for your contributions. -- Alexf(talk) 01:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Alexf(talk) 12:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)