User talk:El duderino/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
for Archive 2 >>

dispute on Mad Men and smoking[edit]

starting Dec. 16 2011

On the discussion page, this question about the show [1] and response [2] prompted me to reply [3] 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."[1] Since the actors cannot, by California law, smoke tobacco cigarettes in their workplace, they instead smoke herbal cigarettes.[2][1]

  • in Themes

Mad Men depicts parts of American society and culture of the 1960s, highlighting cigarette smoking, drinking, sexism, feminism, adultery, homophobia, and racism.[1][3] 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.[1] In the pilot, representatives of Lucky Strikecigarettes 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.[4]

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 [4] was removed [5] for the questionable reason"stll no evidence that show has caused anyone other than January Jones to start smoking"

Talkback[edit]

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.[reply]

Ankit Maity Talk• contribs 07:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Mad Men, you may beblocked from editing. Please stop replacing content to theMad Men article talk page that is not related to improving the article. Continuing to do so violatesWP: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) [reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

You have been reported for edit warring at the 3RRNB. You may see the link to this report if you wish to comment there atlink. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

"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)[reply]

Rm 'personal attacks'[edit]

in re WP:ANI -"Attack page" by User:El duderino (archived: [6])

I've removed several personal attacks from your talk page. Reinserting the material may result in a blockfrom editing. The specific policies regarding this are the second paragraph at Wikipedia:UP#OWN and Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I read the content myself and removed what I determined to be a personal attack. I left everything else.--v/r -TP 20:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean my explanatory comments about the links I was collecting, then respectfully I disagree -- but in deference I will revise the comments. I'm restoring the links below with abridged explanations (in prep for the suggested RFC/U) and seeking a second opinion. I am unable to simply keep a local copy offline as you suggested and I maintain that this evidence collection is not against policy. El duderino (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The contents are against policy. If you restore them again to your userspace without a draft RFC/U or without taking them to WP:DRN, then you will be blocked from editing. If you cannot store them offline, then I suggest you regiter for a free email account at hotmail and email them to yourself. Posting diffs in your userspace harrassing other users and calling them names are personal attacks.--v/r - TP 22:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More nonspecific allegations. What exactly is so offensive about the revised list of links?[7] And it was started as a draft RFC/U. El duderino (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read WP:NPA? Holding diffs over the head of other editors with no actual process for resolution is threatening and disparaging. It inhibits another users attempt to edit in a collaborative enviroment. That's what's wrong with it. The only time you can gather diffs is when you are in the process of seeking resolution such as at WP:ANI,WP:DRN, and WP:RFC/U or when you are in a discussion on a talk page such as here on your talk page or on an article talk page. Building pages of diffs in your userspace without discussion constitutes an attack page.--v/r -TP 22:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i am more than familiar with NPA. What specifically there are you referring to? I take issue with your characterization of what I posted here as "Holding diffs over the head of other editors." The only thing close to what you infer is the 5th point at What is considered to be a personal attack?: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users." i have provided diffs. Before and since, I told you it is in preparation for a formal report. I appreciate your patience in responding here but I still do not see how what I've posted is "threatening and disparaging" no matter how much he tries to paint it as such. And though I self-reverted in the initial content dispute[8] thereby putting that issue to rest, I saw no equivalent effort by Lhb1239 to return to collaborative editing -- and quite the opposite, as he clearly followed me to the OWS article. El duderino (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then take your diffs to WP:DRN, don't collect them in your userspace. There is a difference between presenting evidence and collecting negative information about your opponents. One requires participation by others and seeks resolution while the other is used to threaten others against disagreeing with you.--v/r -TP 23:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again you use the term threat. I don't take this lightly. By this point it's clear you've already sided with the other user. I await any additional comments at the ANI and then I will proceed. Again thanks for your replies but Please don't continue this debate here. We disagree and I still see no specific connection to WP:NPA. El duderino(talk) 23:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care what you like or take lightly. It is what it is by Wikipedia's standards. Readd it and I'll block you. I'm not going to continue arguing this point with you; see WP:IDHT.--v/r -TP 23:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get hostile. I do not intend to re-add it in the same form. Please don't post here again.El duderino (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC) revised 12:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

alternatives to unilateral deletion[edit]

Less than 5 hours after User:Lhb1239 opened the ANI report [9] it was closed by admin TParis[10] who removed the material before ANI discussion could unfold, twice. I clearly say above (at 23:35) that I wish to hear others' comments there, yet TParis closes the thread as resolved only 20 min. later, preventing any further discussion. By that time, two alternatives had already been brought up, one by another admin. In light of these factors I think the ANI report was closed prematurely. At the least, TParis's interpretation of policy in the dialogue above should go on the record there along with my disagreement. I intend to seek others' advice before I proceed. El duderino (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

update: Lhb1239 was a sockpuppet, blocked[edit]

  • Note: Lhb1239 was later found (SPI Jan '12 by Doc9871, of all ppl) to be a sockpuppet of blocked User:SkagitRiverQueen. El duderino (abides) 22:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b c d 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_duderino/Archive_1&oldid=540387240"