| Revision as of 20:19, 27 December 2011 editEl duderino (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,219 editsm →Rm personal attacks← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:21, 27 December 2011 edit undoEl duderino (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,219 edits →Rm personal attacks: + ANI link, and rmv repetitive point, already said that at ANINext edit → | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
| == Rm personal attacks == | == Rm personal attacks == | ||
| :] | |||
| I've removed several personal attacks from your talk page. Reinserting the material may result in a ] from editing. The specific policies regarding this are the second paragraph at ] and ]. If you feel there are behavior issues that need to be addressed, you can open an ] and provide diffs there for community discussion.--v/r - ]] 20:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC) | I've removed several personal attacks from your talk page. Reinserting the material may result in a ] from editing. The specific policies regarding this are the second paragraph at ] and ]. If you feel there are behavior issues that need to be addressed, you can open an ] and provide diffs there for community discussion.--v/r - ]] 20:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
| ::Yes, you can gather it and store it on your computer until you are ready to open an ].--v/r - ]] 20:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC) | ::Yes, you can gather it and store it on your computer until you are ready to open an ].--v/r - ]] 20:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::So just because he says my comments are personal attacks, that's enough to get them removed? His judgement on what constitutes a personal attack cannot be trusted |
:::So just because he says my comments are personal attacks, that's enough to get them removed? His judgement on what constitutes a personal attack cannot be trusted. He doesn't seem to understand the finer points of ] -- "discussion of a user's conduct is not in itself a personal attack." The diffs he links at the ANI do not violate WP:NPA. I've repeatedly asked him to identify specific attacks before, which he failed to do. . ] (]) 20:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:21, 27 December 2011
leave a message, the whole brevity thing.
dispute on Mad Men and smoking
- starting Dec. 16 2011
On the discussion page, this question about the show and response prompted me to reply and think about it more.
When someone else removed the whole thread (very soon after) and thereby instigate an edit-war over whats appropriate for the article talkpage, I decided to look at it more closely:
- At Mad Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the first time smoking is depicted seems to be a defensive position, as if responding to criticism which is not there:
- in Filming and production design
On the scenes featuring smoking, Weiner stated: "Doing this show without smoking would've been a joke. It would've been sanitary and it would've been phony." Since the actors cannot, by California law, smoke tobacco cigarettes in their workplace, they instead smoke herbal cigarettes.
- in Themes
Mad Men depicts parts of American society and culture of the 1960s, highlighting cigarette smoking, drinking, sexism, feminism, adultery, homophobia, and racism. Smoking, far more common in the United States of the 1960s than it is now, is featured throughout the series; many characters can be seen smoking several times in the course of an episode. In the pilot, representatives of Lucky Strike cigarettes come to Sterling Cooper looking for a new advertising campaign in the wake of a Reader's Digest report that smoking will lead to various health issues including lung cancer.
I plan to investigate the article's editing history to see how this editorial treatment has evolved, or devolved as the case may be.
- in Influence this addition was removed for the questionable reason "stll no evidence that show has caused anyone other than January Jones to start smoking"
- relevant policy page on false accusations of harassment: Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Accusing_others_of_harassment
Talkback
Message added 07:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ankit Maity 07:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
December 2011
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Mad Men, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop replacing content to the Mad Men article talk page that is not related to improving the article. Continuing to do so violates WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT as well as WP:NOTAFORUM - if you persist, I will have no option but to take this again to AN/I. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Talk:Mad Men shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Do not post here again. How ironic that you are templating me now after virtually crying to several others about my supposed 'harassment' and 'personal attacks'... When I attempted to discuss this issue in a civil manner on your talkpage, you dismissed me and then proceeded to escalate the situation in a number of forums, then complaining that I was the one seeking attention. You are not the talkpage moderator and the thread in question is perfectly suitable to discussion on article improvement. I even added some specific points to discuss. Why are you so hellbent on censoring discussion? (And seeing any disagreement as 'personal attacks' and 'harassment'). El duderino (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
You have been reported for edit warring at the 3RRNB. You may see the link to this report if you wish to comment there at this link. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Frivolous" from your own words. El duderino (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC) And I already asked you to stop posting here. I believe there is policy about you ignoring this (now repeated) request. El duderino (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Rm personal attacks
I've removed several personal attacks from your talk page. Reinserting the material may result in a block from editing. The specific policies regarding this are the second paragraph at Misplaced Pages:UP#OWN and Misplaced Pages:NPA. If you feel there are behavior issues that need to be addressed, you can open an WP:RFC/U and provide diffs there for community discussion.--v/r - TP 20:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- As I just said in the ANI report, I believe I am allowed to gather evidence for a report on his false allegations and possible WP:hounding by following me to another article. I think you removed the content too quickly. El duderino (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you can gather it and store it on your computer until you are ready to open an WP:RFC/U.--v/r - TP 20:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- So just because he says my comments are personal attacks, that's enough to get them removed? His judgement on what constitutes a personal attack cannot be trusted. He doesn't seem to understand the finer points of WPA -- "discussion of a user's conduct is not in itself a personal attack." The diffs he links at the ANI do not violate WP:NPA. I've repeatedly asked him to identify specific attacks before, which he failed to do. . El duderino (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- ^ Matthew Weiner et al. (2007). The Making of Mad Men (Documentary). AMC.
{{cite AV media}}: Explicit use of et al. in:|authors=(help) - Cite error: The named reference
witchelwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Cite error: The named reference
nyreviewwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes". Mad Men. Season 1. Episode 1. 2007-07-19. AMC.