User talk:Media67

Generation Article

Hi,

I'm not quite sure what happened there, except that the opening and closing "ref" markers seem to have somehow gotten confused. I think I've fixed it. I would suggest that we try to cut down on the number of references in that article (and in the Gen Y article). The reason there are so many is to show the variety of dates used in different sources, but I think that they are simply confusing to potential editors in an overview article like that. It's really hard to edit the text, and as we have just seen the wiki markup can easily be confused. I don't think it is necessary to have a half dozen sources. (or more!) Peregrine981 (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generation X

Additional, reliable sources have been added to the subject you disagreed with - please do not continue to engage in edit warring. --Danteferno (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not edit warring by Wikipedia's standards. Media67 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is edit warring, and you were WARNED about it by an ADMINISTRATOR on the WP:WN 2 months back. Do you remember that discussion, and what you were told? I'm going to ask you again: Stop edit warring, and stop removing sourced content. --Danteferno (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's not edit warring Here's the Wikipedia policy: WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See below for exemptions".

Your accusation doesn't meet the Wikipedia criteria of three (3) revert edits in 24 hours. Do you understand the policy?

Please stop exagerrating again. If you have a problem with the facts about this particular edit then bring it up on an Admin page. Your edit wont hold againt the facts.Media67 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been protected for EDIT WARRING. I'm not going to argue with you. If you want to discuss your creative disagreements on the article now, I have no problem with discussing. If not, duly noted.--Danteferno (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It cant be edit warring because it doesn't fit the Wikipedia criteria of 3 revert/edits in 24 hours. Also does your use of ALL CAPS mean something special (like shouting) in your replies? I've outlined why this sentence should be removed in the summary page: "Todd Solondz, born 1959, is a Baby Boomer (not Gen X) filmmaker. The Doll House movie was released in 1995". It's about a "7th Grade" person according to IMDB.com. A person in 7th grade in the U.S. is approximately around 12. In 1995, that person would be a member of Gen Y. The Doll House movie is about Gen Y not Gen X. So why do you want to keep it on the Gen X page? It's not accurate. What are your sources? Move it to the Gen Y page. Media67 (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is nearly identical to your response in the edit summaries, and it doesn't hold any water: 1.) Published sources corroborate that the director's work has been associated with Generation X. If you actually perused those sources, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Solondz' birthday is not relevant: Richard Linklater has also been cited as a Generation X film director and he was born in 1960. 2.) IMDb is a user-edited site, not a reliable source of information, and doesn't even prove your point anyway, and 3.) Your justification for removing the information is based entirely on your personal opinion, just like earlier cases in the article with the Gen X birthyear range. Personal opinion has no place on Wikipedia. --Danteferno (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(continued) Both published sources mentioned pass WP:RS and will likely be construed the same way on the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Unless you have a good case that will prove otherwise on the RSN, I don't think there's more to discuss on this matter, and I'm not going to play any games with you. --Danteferno (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph will need to be reworded. The book ref. you added does not explicitly say "Todd Solondz[26] has been called a Generation X filmmaker". What it does say is that his movies "evoke Gen X's childhood".

Also, why did you remove Quentin Tarantino (born 1963) as Gen X filmmaker?Media67 (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read both sources? Being part of Generation X and a Generation X film director are not the same thing. As for including Quentin Tarantino, if you have a reliable source that passes WP:RS, then I can't see why there would be any objections. --Danteferno (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Continued) Would:

"the films of ___, ____, ___, etc. have been associated with Generation X culture"

sound more appropriate than:

"___, ___, and ___ have been called Generation X filmmakers"? --Danteferno (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what page 365 says in "50 Contemporary Directors"? I'm still looking for it. Also the Dollhouse sentence has nothing to do with the ref. number 27. And you could add something like "(although technically Baby Boomers) they have been associated with Gen X culture. Media67 (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no more game-playing: The information citing Todd Solondz as a Generation X filmmaker or a director of Generation X films is CLEARLY in both sources. I'm not going to spell it out for you. Speaking of which, where is the Tarantino/Gen X source? --Danteferno (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again what does page 365 say exactly? And they're technically Boomers (Solondz and Linklater). Wikipedia can be referenced about it. It can be mentioned in the same paragrah with no conflicts. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Boom_Generation Also, "associated with Gen X culture" doesn't work either. It needs to be more specific according to your source. Media67 (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, no more game-playing and no more polemics. I'm not going to spell anything out for you - if you disagree with the sources or anything in the sources, take it to RSN for a third party comment. If not, then there's nothing to dispute. --Danteferno (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Media67. You have new messages at Darkwind's talk page.
Message added 22:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—Darkwind (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]