Misplaced Pages

User talk:El duderino: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:02, 27 December 2011 editLhb1239 (talk | contribs)5,190 edits →December 27, 2011← Previous edit Revision as of 19:11, 27 December 2011 edit undoEl duderino (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,219 edits →December 27, 2011: you've been asked several times now to stop posting here.Next edit →
Line 59: Line 59:


* ] '']'' * ] '']''

== December 27, 2011 ==

] Do not create pages that ] their subject. Attack pages and files '''are not tolerated''' by Misplaced Pages and are ]. Users who create or add such material may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:Uw-Attack --> Last night, you were given a choice without formality to remove the above inapproprate attack content. Rather than comply, you chose to add to the content and delete my message. Today I'm making it more formal with the accompanying template. If you choose to not comply by deleting the attack page content, I will take it to the next step and nominate this page for speedy deletion. (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span>]) 17:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:11, 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. (On a side note, the talkpage content dispute escalated into an edit war and false complaints by the disruptive editor User:Lhb1239 claimed harassment because I dared to post on his talkpage and disagree with him there, unsubstantiated claims even before I submitted this 3RR report about the talkpage edit warring, though it was removed by outside editor with the dismissive summary, "enough already'..)
El duderino (talk) (updated) 17:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  • 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"
Note on searching: through History pages of 500 edits at a time, term "smoking" and section titles "Film" and "Themes" as well as selected page snapshots to see if smoking was mentioned before Weiner's defensive quote. Nothing more found in 3 pages worth of history (ie, 1500 edits) back to late 2008. El duderino (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

talkpage content dispute, spillover

Collecting diffs and other evidence in case this dispute continues and worsens, especially since editor has now apparently followed me to the OWS article and is edit warring there with others. El duderino (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


  • And now this (?!)
I've already asked him to stop posting here. Further editing at this talkpage constitutes harassment.El duderino (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, El duderino. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
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)
  1. ^ Matthew Weiner et al. (2007). The Making of Mad Men (Documentary). AMC. {{cite AV media}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |authors= (help)
  2. Cite error: The named reference witchel was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. Cite error: The named reference nyreview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes". Mad Men. Season 1. Episode 1. 2007-07-19. AMC.