User talk:JTBX/Archive 5

Talkback: New message
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you okay?
Just a line to ask you to get in touch with me. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your post ... and your subsequent one ... I was replying to you at the time, so we had an edit conflict. I hate it when that happens.  I picked up that we had no access to the article early this morning.  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

New message: The Godfather ... again!
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC) I have been on the Godfather talk page ... well done! ... a lot of conscientious effort and well worth reading. I am still debating in my mind how to approach our return to the article. Much depends upon your relationship with Ring. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I reverted your changes to the talk page, please see section "Plot Word Count" where I explained why. I did this to avoid confusion, hope you understand thanks. --JTBX (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Certainly no hard feelings ... just thought that continuity was worth while in case someone, other than we three, ever bothers to read this page (!) If you consider that, you may wish to revert your revision(?) Cheers,  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * After the recent debacle I thought it may have come across that I was in conflict with you now, hahah, just wanted to clarify that the reverts were done because they were two different discussions and the placement of answers, such as by Ring-Cinema made it look as though it was one. Its fine now though, thanks. I would appreciate any other ideas and so on on the talk page, from you, regarding the plot. JTBX (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Have a look! (First paragraph)  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad you approve. Shall attend to second later today.  Keep well!  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Re- this 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.

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to make contact, and to thank you for your kind birthday greeting.

The talk page looks very different this morning. Copy has been removed.

BTW, re- your recent "El Dude"'s talk page comment, I do not have any agenda.

Best wishes, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I note you have returned to the article to edit the plot summary this evening. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

disruptive editing at No Country for Old Men
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!


 * -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ANI concerning you regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs)

April 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 15:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

A Serbian Film
Talk: A Serbian Film --JTBX (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It took me a bit but I left some responses for you. I'm off to bed, so do what you like and I'll rejoin the discussion tomorrow afternoon. --Williamsburgland (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we be friends, again, please?
09:53 The Godfather Part II‎ (diff | hist). . (+2)‎ . . Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs) (Note to JT:  your edit to the paragraph is as you left it.  I would suggest that the paragraph breaks are best preserved  for the time being.  GG-J.)

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight. I can edit it as long as I keep the paragraph breaks in? And you won't act like you own the article? Do you have a genuine problem seeing the difference between large edits, and would like to keep the paragraphs?, I mean I can edit it that way if you wish. I'm pretty close to reporting all of this nonsense you know. And I saw your "funny" joke with Ring, as well as the other nonsense on his page, when I didn't even have a dispute on A Serbian film you thought I did, as well as the general ageism and the removal of my revert edit warning, removal of other editors stating you should read WP:OWN and so on. On a side note, who was the IP that posted those things about Ring? (though to be fair, he was right) JTBX (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If none of that made any sense I'm pretty tired right now. I said I was close to making reports how many times? Every time I come close to I get tired and think, ah forget it. And how many edits do you make a day any way? pretty fast man. JTBX (talk)


 * Please JT, I am doing my best here to make amends.  The thing about the para breaks, we started off on that on our initial encounter, and you could see what I meant then.  It is not an issue.  The thing about very large changes was brought up by your opposing editor on the A Serbian film.  That was why I referred to it.  No other reason.  This was not a joke with Ring.  We would both like to work with you again.  You are young and I respect you for that and the quality of your editing.  I have not seen what you refer to as, "... removal of other editors stating you should read WP:OWN and so on."  Where ?  When?  Show me!
 * I haven't a clue who that IP is, but Ring says he has a good idea who it is. Why the anon posted on my page, I still cannot understand, other than that he was responding to Ring's remark.
 * I do not understand the, "And how many edits do you make a day any way? pretty fast man." Would you care to explain?
 * Regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

reply
There was one through your history, I can't look for it now, where an editor stated that you should read WP:OWN before reverting. Anyway I dislike the ageism still and Ring might say he wants to work with me but I know he doesn't. As for you, well I don't know personally. It was going so well before Ring came along and you seemed to have morphed into another version of him, which is why I found your reverts of my work even more disturbing. I was even considering a sock puppet investigation at one point.

An admin (Dennis Brown) as you recall, even didn't like how you were commenting on his page about me. So its not just me that has to learn a lot on Wiki, I've been here three years. If you want, again look at Predators, look at A Serbian film etc that is how consensus is worked out, even go back to when me and you were working on Godfather Part I. I added some things, you added some things, I even incorporated what Ring wished for, but he just kept reverting everything, so wheres the consensus? whats the use? I can't even trust you any more, you are just like Ring to me now, not neutral. The fact that the IP noticed Ring's editing just proved my point, as well as everyone else. Ring should just stick to talk pages. Has he put forward a draft? does he edit pages of plots?

"And how many edits do you make a day any way? pretty fast man." just a side commenting noting how many edits you make in a day, pretty hard to keep up with. Sigh, I don't know. I still would like to go forward without a report or Dispute resolution some time. --JTBX (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You have to understand, that I edit plots based on policy. Think about it from my perspective, I edited that mammoth plot of Godfather Part II over the course of days getting rid of superfluos information, watching the film, making sure it has flow and bam you just revert several times. So I try to add my improvements in again one at a time and have a breif edit summary, which is what summary is, and you insultingly revert again. AND keep in mind I requested your help on good faith for more improvements because I thought it could be like Godfather Part I again, but there you went, back to best buddy Ring.--JTBX (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. You said at the top of this that you are tired.  I am too now.  It is one in the morning.  Let us return to it in the morning, and reread it from the start.  I believe that you and I can get back to how it was.  Good night,  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * POSTSCRIPT:  I have never posted on User:Dennis Brown's page.  I do not know him.  Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I edited the first few paragraphs keeping the breaks, just for you. As expected they look like a ridiculous bundle of sentences now, but if you click here, you can see this differences between the original and my edits. Is that what you wanted?--JTBX (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Fine. Now there is a comparison data line to work from.  All I am requesting.
 * My reply is above, btw ... 00:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Return to Godfather Part II
Nice to see you joined the paragraphs, but I dont think we should expand to add details that irrelevant to the main plot though, such as when Senator Geary excuses himself etc. For this reason I was thinking that including Bonasera in the original film's plot was also a bad idea. I haven't changed anything though. Just something to think about. JTBX (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on all of these points. If we mention the senator at the start of the summary, it makes sense to refer to his opting out of the commission hearing when Michael is called.  I think that either both should stay in, or both should be omitted – the latter is my choice – which is yours?
 * -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nota bene, because I don't archive, I have taken (as before recently ) this discussion to your Talk page.  Mine is so large ... I keep on deleting sections, but it just keeps growing,  haha!
 * Hope you don't mind, and if you do, please tell me!
 * -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

New message from Gareth Griffith-Jones
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Answered your concerns at Talk:Kony 2012
I hope you're satisfied with such speedy and complete customer's service, you're welcome. --Niemti (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

New message from Gareth Griffith-Jones
Hi! I thought this would please you 10:07, July 17, 2012‎ Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs)‎. . (22,357 bytes) (-225)‎. . (→‎Plot:  Substituted first paragraph with JT's version on the Talk page) (rollback | ....................................................................................... 10:01, July 17, 2012‎ Gareth Griffith-Jones  (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,582 bytes) (-58)‎ . .  (→‎Plot:  Agree with you JT on this!) THIS REFERS TO THE SECOND PARAGRAPH's reference to the book.

Hope you are keeping well. All the best, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE CLICK HERE! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I can read that you've been to look at the page, but what do you think about the above, earlier edit of mine this mornng?
 * -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply – glad you're happy with what I've done where we are both employed.
 * Didn't you mean III ..?
 * Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries and talk pages
Thank you for your edits tot he article on the Soviet Union.

Have you considered the use of edit summaries when making edits?

Do you think that there might also be merit in using article talk pages to discuss controversial edits?--Toddy1 (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No Country for Old Men
Due to the intollerable attempts at article ownership by two editors who refuse to "allow" reducing the size of this article to a reasonable length, it is now in dispute resolution. I invite you to comment in the process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FNo_Country_for_Old_Men_.28film.29

Jasoncward (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The same two people.--JTBX (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Soviet Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baltic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll Be There
Hey buddy, so I picked you randomly from the MJ Wikiproject; I am currently bringing all Mariah Carey related articles to GA level, and this song poses some issue. Would you, or do you know of anyone, that would be willing to do the Jackson 5 half of the page? I'll do her version etc. and then we can do a joint GA-nom. Thanks :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   14:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. Well, I'm not sure if you are familiar with getting an article to GA quality, but it would need a major over-haul. Its definitely not a small and easy job. You would need to gather a lot of sources (reliable ones, of course) and craft well-written prose. If this is too daunting, see if you know of any other MJ fan that might be interested. Thanks :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   05:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Soviet Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baltic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Tekken (video game) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Conglomerate


 * Tekken 3 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Paul Phoenix

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You're completely wrong
Regarding this I must say, in my defense, the following:
 * "I also gave some opinions on how the quote could be fitted in and so on, but you simply placed a soapbox template onto me." That's a blatant lie.  Anyone who looks at the edit history will see that you did not say that in your initial rant, and that it was never hidden.  Another editor agrees that your comments were "bizarre and personal".
 * On the Indonesian killings page, six editors--User:Crisco 1492, User:Merbabu, User:SatuSuro, User:Nil Einne, User:Aldnonymous, and I--all agreed to trim the section, which flagrantly violated Wikipedia policy. Crisco 1492, an admin, decided that my cuts were not nearly sufficient, and removed another 7,000 bytes.  That you would ignore this consensus and instead cite the one repeatedly blocked troll who called me a "censor" is outrageous!  Every single one of my edits on that page was discussed and approved and expanded upon by a broad consensus after truly massive amounts of discussion.
 * In this edit, I removed discussion of the Nicaraguan economy, most of it added by me. Large portions of what I removed were anti-Sandinista:  "For decades, Nicaragua had experienced some of the fastest economic growth in the hemisphere. Within a few years of Sandinista rule, wages had been fixed below poverty level and there was mass unemployment. There were shortages of nearly all basic goods, with inflation at 30,000%. Government studies found that three-quarters of schoolchildren suffered from malnutrition, while living standards were lower than Haiti. The World Bank found that Nicaragua was on the economic level of Somalia."
 * That you brought up this edit is highly amusing: First of all, the edit I reverted is nothing more than an elaborate defense of the censorship of La Presna.  It is horribly written, one-sided, and completely off-topic.  Horhey even managed to pack three unsourced and synthesised claims into a single sentence:  "Chamorro also claimed that there were 10,000 political prisoners in Nicaragua but these assertions were dismissed by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International."  But here's the kicker:  This edit, which you so foolishly brought up, was reported to an admin, who replied:  "I agree with Times here. That's UNDUE."  When Horhey pressed the issue, the admin stated:  "Honestly, I think that section still needs more trimming. It is roughly a quarter of the article right now. We should use summary style, and this is going into too much detail for this particular article. The majority should be in Contras, Iran-Contra affair, and La Prensa."
 * This edit's problems are self-evident. You edit warred without edit summaries to remove mention of Chile's economic growth under Pinochet; and it was only added because you inserted unsourced commentary blaming the 1982 banking crisis (which you incorrectly linked to) on the "Chicago Boys".  You continually refused to discuss your edits on the talk page, even though I had left a message there.  You copied from Wikipedia without attribution to add commentary about U.S. policy from the fifties, which was beyond the scope of the article.  Your unsourced synthesis in the lead was removed, and you never even attempted to justify it.
 * "I would never tolerate removal of content that verifies Soviet domination of Eastern Europe." Sure you would:  I've caught you removing mention of the phrase "Soviet Empire" numerous times, as well as edit warring on Soviet Union to limit negative facts.  You even claimed that User:Michaelwuzthere has a right-wing agenda, when he's known by all to be a socialist (check his user page!).  Your history of assuming bad faith continues with your contemptible personal attacks on User:Nguyen1310:  "Damn, I thought Times was bad, this Nguyen guy takes the cake, should people like him even be allowed on Wikipedia?"  No wonder you removed mention of free speech for those you disagree with from your user page!  Your entire history on and usage of Wikipedia is highly dubious and filled with personal attacks.
 * Looking at the Reagan article, around half of all the sources I added were critical of U.S. policy: "Right to Survive: Human Rights in Nicaragua" The Catholic Institute for International Relations (1987); Grandin, Greg, Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, The United States and the Rise of the New Imperialism, Henry Holt & Company (2007), pg.89; Grandin, Greg, Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, The United States and the Rise of the New Imperialism, Henry Holt & Company (2007), pg.90; Gareau, Frederick, State Terrorism and the United States, London: Zed Books (2004), pg.16 & 166; Blum, William, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II Noida, India: Zed Books (2003), p.290; "Terrorism Debacles in the Reagan Administration", The Future of Freedom Foundation; Nieto, Clara, Masters of War: Latin America and United States Aggression from the Cuban Revolution Through the Clinton Years, New York: Seven Stories Press (2003), pg. 343–345; and ect.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I didnt even want to respond to this nonsense but here goes very quickly:

JTBX (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion was on the inclusion of a Chomsky quote, which I addressed at the beginning. The other editor was an admin who was summing up the situation, partly because of your escalation of it.
 * The indonesian killings consist of you edit warring with Horhey, user Jrtayloriv noticed your behaviour as well, and you cite a "consensus" of Merbabu who states on your talk page "does every article need a US involvement section Lol?" an excellent historical scholar in the making. As for the other editors, it is certainly true that Horhey was very demented in his approach to the wiki and all over the place, but was only trying to defend himself alone against you and all the admins and users you motivate by going on to their pages and who approach the subject one sided. Your deletions are also astounding, it, again would be better to tag them or label the sections as needing a trim, so other editors can condense what Horhey added.
 * I dont care whether it was pro or anti-Sandinista, you removed sourced information. You trimmed quotes that were against the Sandinsta while removing a BBC source that called the elections of the Sandinistas fair. You blanket removed a chunk of information over Reagan's foreign policy towards the stranglehold of the Nicaraguan economy which was damaging it.
 * an admin, who replied...We should use summary style, and this is going into too much detail for this particular article. The majority should be in Contras, Iran-Contra affair, and La Prensa." But here's the kicker: you removed the section on the censorship of La Prensa, which the Sandinistas justified because it was effectively a mouthpiece of the US goverment backing terrorist actions in that country.
 * I dont even know what planet you are on. The US created the situation in Chile by funding opposition and utilising the CIA for the coup to take hold, the beacon of democracy. It then brought in the Chicago Boys for advice on the economy which led to the crisis. It was all a summation, which is what an intro is, and I provided a source in the introduction, all of which you reverted. The introduction since then has had more nonsense which you didnt even bother with in your typical hypocritical fashion.
 * Have you seen me add "American Empire" anywhere? even though it is one so blatantly (and in fact, if you know your history, which the founders referred to it as), "Soviet Empire" looks immature and ridiculous, equally coined by a Hollywood actor turned mass murderer who wished to project that simple minded view into his lullaby-hungry populace. Whenever I removed or changed Soviet Empire, I replaced it with "Soviet domination" or "Russian domination". All my edits to the Soviet Union were done to make the introduction concise. Michaelwasthere, a hardline communist, was writing in things like "Great October Revolution" instead of revolution for example. Neither he, or his mirror image Nguyen belong on wikipedia. There is a difference between allowing people to voice their opinion and the revising of history with censorship. Your last part is just a joke, I have always edited my user page recently and removed a lot of quotes etc, absolutely baseless attacks.
 * I dont see any of these critiques reflected in the article, sorry.

No, there were at least three or four sections on the talk page of the Indonesian article, as well as an ANI discussion, involving 6 editors. Merbabu's comments on my talk page were not the "consensus", but he was correct to say that the section gave undue weight to a barely existant American role--and that Wikipedia should not be so US-centric. On many other pages, such as Salvadoran civil war, I consented to tag rather than remove Horhey's text. Since I know more about Indonesia, I summarized his text very carefully; indeed, Crisco1492 decided to cut several thousand additional characters! Merbabu created and wrote the vast majority of that article, and created the version in the Indonesian Wikipedia (which has reached featured article status)!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Go on. JTBX (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Dark Knight (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skyhook (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)