|
User talk:AutoMametJuly 2013
Yes, repost edit with citation added. AutoMamet (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
What does one do when one has reason to believe that an erroneous or falsified report has been made regarding an account and would like to have it corrected. What is the proper procedure. AutoMamet (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The Departed film (2006) has, by general agreement, received a major reappraisal of its sources following the capture of the leading crime character portrayed in the film. Following his capture in 2011 general agreement in the U.S., following the daily PBS News Hour reports of his trial and his capture, has gone to the view that the film is based centrally on the biography of the captured Whitey Bulger. Prior to 2011, from 2006, virtually all of the literature was acknowledging The Departed as originating from a Hong Kong film trilogy called Infernal Affairs. After 2011 and the Bulger capture this view of the overwhelming Bulger orientation of the film, even to the exclusion of mentioning the film trilogy at all, has taken place. The 4 cites were given together in the New Edit as evidence of this reversal of general agreement and opinion from 2011 onward. This situation is comparable to the film Citizen Kane in film theory (also an academy award winner) where the film was originally presented as being based on a fictional story developed by Orson Welles but only later recognized to be the biography of Randolph Hearst, the newspaper magnate. Today, general agreement throughout the United States acknowledges the biographical aspect of the film as preferred. The manner of how the wikipage which deals with Randolph Hearst on the Citizen Kane page provides a model which would be much more informative for the benefit of wiki readers, rather than deleting this Bulger edit completely or reducing it to a sentence fragment. (See the effective manner that the Citizen Kane page deals with this type of issue. See "Hearst as story model" sic "Bulger as story model.") The GoogleBooks preview pages for the 4 books referenced in the New Section are limited to small excerpts which are not representative of the books as a whole. If you read the preview only then you have not read the books. They are only previews and of limited value. Realistically, there seems little chance that anyone else would devote the 21-22 hrs needed to read these 4 books, and the option of watching the widely available twenty minute DVD doc of The Departed mentioned in the previous post above would be more realistic and constructive to this discussion. AutoMamet (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Bloom editsThere were some problems with your recent edits on the Bloom page. Your edit had this quote (below) on the page twice (once under "criticism" and once under "writing career"): :"Bloom has been called "probably the most celebrated literary critic in the United States"[32] and "America's best-known man of letters"[12]. I moved it from the "criticism" and left it in the "writing career" section. This quote was from a 1994 article, not 2013: "A 2013 New York Times article noted that many younger critics understand the 83-year-old Bloom as "as an outdated oddity."[34]"
Re, Your comments above: The negative quotes are in the "criticism" section. The rest of the article has many positive cites.Macroscope7 (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC) August 2013
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
September 2013 Your recent editing history at The Departed shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Several editors have expressed concerns in regards to your edits at this article. Please do not keep restoring disputed material to the article without gaining a consensus first. If you persist I will place a request to have you blocked from editing. Betty Logan (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Dude, seriously. Take your concerns such as this to the talk page. Don't keep trying over and over to insert some point which is disputed. Get consensus on the talk page or let it alone. You may be blocked for slow but long-term edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
October 2013 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)In response to your comments on my talk page, I'm replying there and here, but please only reply here, as you cannot use an IP to evade your block and edit on my talk page, even if you think the block is not justified:
BlockedI've just blocked you indefinitely per the findings of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AutoMamet. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC) |
