User talk:Drmargi/Archive 2

March 2011
Thanks for the kind and sarcastic welcome to Wikipedia. Many of your recent edits also do not appear to be constructive especially in the Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares and Kitchen Nightmares articles. It is you who have made unprovoked reverts to the closures of the restaurants that Seems that you have messaged the moderator to stop further edits to the articles like you did with the Kitchen Nightmare articles seeing that you have a miss-grounded concept what kind of consensus that is being brought up. You should know that that the US and UK articles discussions to not cover closures of the restaurants that happened during the broadcast of the shows. Instead of being a dictator why don't you let the discussions take place until a solution is brought forward. Please do not start another edit war which is grounded in your misunderstanding of how consensus works. All that will do is get the UK article protected as it did the US article. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and it is actually the burden which is on you to establish new consensus to exclude closures. 58.165.73.190 (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Neal Caffrey
I want to create an article called List of White Collar characters

Work is in progress. I have already completed information on Neal Caffrey, please comment.

Neal Caffrey
Neal Caffrey is one of the world's greatest con artists. Caffrey was an elusive criminal, and a three year game of cat and mouse with the FBI and Special Agent Peter Burke resulted in his capture. Though Caffrey was suspected of counterfeiting, securities fraud, art theft and racketeering among others, he was only convicted of bond forgery. After a visit from his girlfriend, Kate Moreau, Caffrey learns she has disappeared and with only three months left on his four-year prison sentence, he escapes from prison dressed as a cop all while executing his escape with the utmost precision. While he tries to find her, he is recaptured by Burke. To avoid going back to prison, Neal makes a deal with Burke to help him find the criminal Burke is hunting. After successfully apprehending the criminal, Burke signs a work-release program with Caffrey and thus Cafferey becomes a consultant to the FBI.

Neal's charm proves to work for his advantage in many instances. When Neal is released from prison to work with the FBI, he is given a ratty motel room the FBI rented for him. While browsing in a thrift store, the day after his first night in the motel, Neal befriends a widow named June who was donating her late husband's couturier suits. Neal is taken on as a boarder in the rich widow's townhouse. He acquires not only a more than comfortable residence but also a new wardrobe of expensive suits, shoes, and hats which become a signature look. A jealous Agent Burke tells June that Neal is a felon but he gets to know that June's ex-husband too was a felon.

In the episode 'Forging Bonds', it is revealed that Neal began his career as a con-man when he met Mozzie, targeting a CEO named Vincent Adler. It was with Adler that Neal first encountered a fractal, as well as Alexandra Hunter and his long-time girlfriend Kate, for whom he sacrificed the con on Adler. Adler eventually disappeared, taking more than a billion US dollars and leaving all of his employees jobless and without pay.

Broke and unemployed, Neal chose to tell Kate about his true profession. After this, Neal, Kate, and Mozzie began running scams together, until one day Neal tries to sweet-talk Kate into leaving for Europe. When Neal mentions Copenhagen to her, Kate gets upset and reveals that she knows about the music box job that Alex told him about. She accused him of trying to con her and stayed in New York when Neal left for Copenhagen. As tha job was a three-person job, it failed without her, forcing Neal to leave Alex in a French hospital and escape back to New York.

Upon his return, Neal discovers that Kate is hiding from him and eventually starts doing bigger cons and forgeries, trying to catch her attention. The FBI eventually track Kate down and realize that Caffrey has no idea where she is, so they set up a trap for him to find her, where they finally catch him.

In the episode 'What Happens In Burma,' Neal mentions that his father died when he was two years old. His mother told him that his father "went out in a hail of gunfire taking out a whole gang of bad guys," and Neal grew up wanting to be just like his dad. It was in this period that he "got really good with guns." However, at the end of the episode, Neal finally admits to Peter that his dad was a dirty cop, and that his mother only told him what children would want to hear about their fathers. It is implied that learning the truth about his father was what started Neal down the criminal path and that "being bad in in his (Neal's) blood."

Little else is known about Neal's past, other than the fact he didn't even finish high school. His extensive knowledge of art and history is apparently self-taught. DailyEditor (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No winner in last supper???
Please see. --Stefan talk 05:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop reverting and discuss instead.
You are behaving very badly, you revert everything I do, just stating 'because I saw it in the show' as your argument, I discuss, you do not say much more than that you are right, then when someone else adds something that is a step towards a reasonable compromise with references (at least more referenced than what you reverted to), you revert with just a comment in the edit to discuss, please at least write something on the talk page when you revert. I do not want to fight, I do not want to drag admins in or anything, just discuss and reach a compromise, Please try to help a bit. Please read WP:WAR and WP:BRD, both states that you should not revert and you should discuss. --Stefan talk 03:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Stefan, I am increasingly disturbed by your aggressive, and demanding, approach to discussion, and the name-calling that is now accompanying it. You seem to feel that you have the right to set the pace and tone of the discussion as well determine what does, and does not, constitute discussion.  Worse is the complete lack of assumption of good faith inherent in your comments.  Your recent remarks indicate the same lack of understanding of verifiability (versus truth) and of BRD as others have of reliable sources, original research and more.  A basic rule in discussion is to discuss the issue, not the editor, something you are evidently incapable of doing.   Now you've threatened disruptive editing in order to both control the discussion and my behavior.  That is completely unacceptable, and will very likely backfire should you attempt it.  What's sad is that you clearly don't understand why the bulk of the Top Chef article is already appropriately sourced, including the statement that there was no winner discussed.  If you did understand that critical point, we wouldn't be at loggerheads now.


 * I will reply to your comments in due course, and in the fashion I feel is appropriate. I find it both arrogant and rude to have another editor tell me I have to reply in a specific manner, much less to feel he has the right do decide what is or is not discussion.  I recognize that you're not a native speaker of English, but that does not excuse such rudeness.  I am now adding WP:CIVIL to the list of policies of which you need to gain command.  Drmargi (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry I did not mean to be uncivil, I just feel like this has been going on for almost a week and I still cannot understand that you can use the show as the source and that you have not made any attempts to explain why that is acceptable in this case. --Stefan talk 08:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Spooks
Granted I'd forgotten to close a ref tag, and I'll find a better source about Richard Armitage, but which part had I "Plagiarized"?! I wrote the other actor joining/leaving parts myself, based on information from several of the sources.

--88.104.174.70 (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Armitage thing wasn't plagiarized; even he isn't commenting on his character's status in keeping with a cliffhange, so the "not expected to return" is pure WP:OR based on your perception of I'm not sure what. The remainder of the sentence was extremely close to the text in one of your sources, and that's plagiarism.  Rewrite, and source it, and you're good to go.  Drmargi (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, apologies. I went back and had another read; it wasn't as close as I remembered, so I restored some of the text.  The Armitage thing is unsourced and has to stay out, and the rest belongs inside the reference, since it all is covered by that reference.  Also, the cast list in the infobox stays as is until Series 10 begins to broadcast.  The infobox always has the current cast as of the most recently broadcast episodes; we also don't know if any of the characters described are recurring versus main cast.  Drmargi (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And just as I was submitting a reply... I was sure one of the sources had mentioned Richard Armitage, but actually they'd mentioned Sophia Myles (incorrectly) as 'boss spook', so apologies. Nevertheless, shouldn't Lucas now be under Non-Grid based characters as, as of last series, he isn't a member of the grid? Regarding plagiarism, I'd never intend to plagiarize which is why I brought it up here. The Sophia Myles thing is also dubious, given the sources suggest she has departed rather than explicitly stating it. I had another point, but I've now forgotten it. Thanks, --88.104.174.70 (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd leave Armitage alone until we have a more definitive end to his story. We spent a good bit of time talking it out at the time, and that was the consensus.  I think the comment on Sophia Myles is OK as is, and it's sourced.  The plagiarism was my error, which I fixed.  Again, I apologize for that.  Drmargi (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't Richard Armitage count as a reliable source? Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Aarti Sequeria
I added the category for aarti sequeira bcoz if she calls herself a catholic, then she should be categorised under Indian Christians or Indian Roman catholics...--Johnmylove (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)--Johnmylove (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I had nothing to do with the assignment of categories. Do as you think is best.  However, Catholic is a proper noun, and should always be capitalized, as should Aarti's name.  It's also customary to add a heading when you start a new section, and to write in full words, not "text-speak".  You're not writing text messages here.  You're writing to an encyclopedic standard and to be clearly understood.  Drmargi (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Robert Irvine
I was not calling you out it seems like you took offense to it. I did not mean to offend you, rather point out your mistake. Intoronto1125 (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

On a side note I am planning on getting a phd any advice you might have for me?


 * All is forgotten. That was so eight hours ago.  It was just that using the phrase "get your facts straight" seemed a bit aggressive, particularly given it didn't address the issue at hand.


 * As for doctoral study, advice? Other than don't expect to have a life for at least five years?  Be darned sure it's what you want.  It will take over your life.  And learn to say no.  You'll have a tremendous number of opportunities come your way.  Learn to pick and choose so you don't overwhelm yourself.  Drmargi (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I am still considering it since i am in my first year, but I love what I am learning, so it is wide open at this point. Thanks for the advice. Are you a professor by any chance? Intoronto1125 (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am. You're in for a big adventure.  I had a ball doing my doc program.  Good luck with your studies!  Drmargi (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you it does mean a lot. Intoronto1125 (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

TPO
Just fyi, Re: this, see WP:TPO, Section headings. :) Dreadstar  ☥  18:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, you're right. It was just 6:30 am on a Saturday and I was annoyed. -- Drmargi (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally comprehend that feeling. I really do.  Dreadstar  ☥  02:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see why you might of late. Thanks for the back-up! Drmargi (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for your note Drmargi. I have done that "what does spell check want this word to be" a time or two myself. In this case I looked at the word in the editing field, when I hit Show preview, after I had saved it and missed my error all three times. It wasn't til I looked at the reply that it came leaping out at me. I wanted to blame the spell check but you know the old adage about a workman blaming his tools :-) Glad you got a chuckle out of it. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 01:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Far too metaphorical for an encyclopedia?
Regarding The Closer, In the first place there is NOTHING in the Manual of Style that even mentions non-use of metaphorical language, let alone how much is too much, so that's your POV. When talking about themes in film or television, metaphors must be discussed, because interpreting a theme from the images presented necessarily involves the metaphor of the image used to express the theme, as well as character and plot.

Second, the sentence specifies 'What we see.' What we see is the character struggling to navigate. We also see and hear her constantly requesting clear directions. This is not metaphorical - its completely apparent, and the theme of Brenda's newness in LA comes mostly from those images. We dont see the character 'building a new life' as this is vague, non-specific and subjective. We certainly dont see anything regarding her 'leaving Atlanta' because the first episode opens in LA. And yet you've reverted to these inadequate and flat out wrong clauses twice. What exactly do YOU see that conveys the theme? Mdw0 (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC) "


 * That's all well and good, but this discussion should be on the article talk page, not here. Please review WP:BRD.  Drmargi (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This BRD stuff can get annoying when peope forget the first rule of R is to NOT revert - its to be bold again with a better edit. Mdw0 (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work regarding PS
Hello Drmargi. I thought something wasn't quite right about what was going on with the various moves regarding Prime Suspect but they were getting too confusing for me to follow. Thus, I appreciate the time you took to post on the talk page for the disambig article. On a lighter note I thought that the TNT series The Closer already was the US version of PS. I also can't imagine that this new series will have any of the gripping impact of the UK one - even if they can find someone as good as Helen Mirren. Thanks again and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 16:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, and I agree about the mess created! I still have to post on the talk page of the guy who made the moves, but that series of moves should never have been done without discussion.  I didn't want to mess with too much, but at least fixed the U.S. version.  No argument about The Closer.  James Duff denies it, and the lead was originally male, but it must have been some sort of inspiration.  You could almost match characters 1-1 the first season.  The new version has Maria Bello in the Tennison role (Jane Timoney).  Good actress, bad choice for the role.  I've seen a couple clips that are so-so.  But we'll give it a chance.  Enjoy your weekend as well, unless the Rapture gets there first.  Drmargi (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi again. If you enjoyed PS I am wondering if you also watched the Robbie Coltrane series Cracker. If you did then you might be interested in this skit that he and Mirren performed for Comic Relief one year. When both of these were airing - in the mid 90's for us US viewers - I mentioned to more than one friend that I wished that they would do a crossover episode. Lo and behold they (sort of) did and it is a real hoot. Of course, you may have already seen this but I thought that I would make you aware of it in case you hadn't. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 22:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, my lordy that's hilarious! I love both Cracker and PS, so it's perfect for me.  Thanks for sharing it.  I have a chum who follows Red Nose Day avidly, and she hadn't seen it either, so I passed it along.  Good stuff! Drmargi (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad you enjoyed it. I had read about this a few years ago but, at that time, it wasn't posted anywhere. Thank goodness for youtube so that we could finally see it. It was also fun seeing Pete Postlethwaite. His passing was a sad day. I'm also glad that your friend got to see it. MarnetteD | Talk 19:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Red Nose Fun
Thanks for your note Drmargi. As cable TV stations started to proliferate in the 90s I began to think that I could rewatch every program that I had ever seen while growing up. Now with, YouTube, I can watch stuff that didn't even air in the US :-) I'm glad that the "aggravation" has had a good outcome and I am sorry to hear about life's frustrations off-wiki. I hope they go away soon. MarnetteD | Talk 12:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you know, is "Fall" capitalized?
Hi Drmargi. I know you are really good with style/grammar, so you were the first person I thought of when I didn't find the answer I wanted via brief Google search. Regarding TV show articles, is the word "fall" capitalized, as in "It will premiere in Fall 2011"? I know that when you phrase it "in the fall", it is decapped. I keep having the urge to decapitalize the word, but have refrained because I wasn't sure. I did find this in the MOS: WP:Capitalization, but it didn't help me. :/ Any insight into this? Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically, it's a common noun and not capitalized. However, I think it should be at times, although it's probably more a matter of taste than a hard-and-fast rule. For example, when we use it to label the Fall television season (which might go another noun, as in the MOS), I believe we're treating it as a proper noun, and it's correct to capitalize it, as you suggest.  Otherwise, we use it as a common noun and shouldn't be capitalized.  Funnily enough, I have the same argument with myself all the time when I write about academic terms (i.e. fall semester) and when they should be capitalized.  Hope that helps! Drmargi (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Gracias!
Thanks for catching the revert on Episodes (TV series)‎, I appreciate it. I just checked the edit summary, you were right. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

New articles
Would you mind looking over and possibly rating a couple new articles I've created? I want to make sure I didn't miss anything, and have a third party read over and fix anything I may have done wrong. The articles can be found at Burn Notice: The Fall of Sam Axe and "Pilot (White Collar)". Thanks! Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure! I'm not sure how to rate them; isn't that something a TV project member does? I'm happy to learn how if it's appropriate.  Drmargi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is, but I believe it's already been done on these two articles. Thanks, though!  Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii Five-0
I thought the series had finished for the year? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It has. Was there a concern?  Drmargi (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There was a concern over the fact that supposedly the final show was still pending, overseas. I'm not sure if that's still the case, or if it even matters. But it might. However, if the show has run its course elsewhere, there's no problem that I can think of. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if it is. WP:SPOILER covers inclusion of episode details, and folks from overseas need to exercise some personal responsibility before reading the article.  Drmargi (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. I was just confused. Feel free to zap this whole section. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Humble request
I've been working on the article for the Chuck pilot, "Chuck Versus the Intersect", and would like to nominate it for GA or FA eventually. But I know how long that process can take. Would you mind looking over the article and correcting anything I missed or giving me advice on how to improve it (other than the fact that the last sentence is unsourced; if I can't find a reliable source, I'll just remove the statement)? Thanks! --Boycool (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure! It may be a few days before I can.  And do bear in mind, I don't watch Chuck, so I can't comment on accuracy of story points.  But that might also be helpful, because I can read it from an outsider's point of view.  Drmargi (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I just need someone with experience on Wikipedia. --Boycool (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Call for consensus: Dead/Alive/Unknown
On Spooks. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No opinion anymore? Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll respond in my own time. Your call is a vote, and consensus is not a vote.  Drmargi (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The longer we drag this out the longer the articles are wrong. And it's not a vote, it's just a consensus was made on old information - some thinking Lucas's death was ambiguous, some thinking that he was dead but we had no references so couldn't say it.  I'm after a consensus now that a reliable reference has been found.  So I called for a consensus so the old opinions aren't counted as current ones.
 * What exactly is you problem with Lucas the article saying Lucas is dead? It can't be because you don't want him to be dead, because you're a good editor who's done a lot of good work and know that our opinion  doesn't count.  It can't be that you're afraid that the makers may reverse it, that sort of thing can happen, but you know we can't pre-guess twists or changes.  It can't be that an interview on a DVD isn't reliable because it is.  It can't be because you believe that the previous reference to an earlier interview is better because it is seriously flawed.  So what is the problem you have? Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen anything yet that establishes definitively that John Bateman is dead. Yes, Armitage refers to Lucas being dead, but he means the real Lucas.  It's just that simple.  Do I think John Bateman is probably dead?  Yes, because I know Richard Armitage is in New Zealand making the Hobbit films, and because there's no way back for his character.  But I can't state that to an encyclopedic standard. Drmargi (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, he isn't refering to the original Lucas. He is refering to his character's own death and the interview is intercut with the final scene on the roof.  You clearly have to seen the evidence and thus your opinion is flawed.  Sorry. Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Look at the video again. Drmargi (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have. A number of times.  I own the DVD.  It is not ambiguous.  It is not about the real-Lucas.  It is about John's confrontation with Harry.  Have you looked at the DVD? Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is pointless. I don't know whether you're not reading my comments with care, or haven't watched the whole video, but I'm referring to an earlier comment, not the end.  Regardless, this discussion is over.  Drmargi (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Who cares about an earlier statement? The one being discussed is the one near the end.  The one I quoted on the discussion page.  That one clearly supports the fact that John is dead.  Which is the point.  I'm glad you've accepted that this has been decided and the discussion is over.Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've addressed this on the show talk page, where this discussion belongs. Drmargi (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Covert Affairs
Ah, didn't see the duplicate entry. Thanks for catching that. Cheers. --Ckatz chat spy  00:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It was easy to miss -- I did a couple fixes and missed it as well. Drmargi (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Richard Castle
My bad! I thought I was reverting a good faith edit, but apparently I was making one myself! Thanks. --Boycool (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

RE:Walliams/Lucas
Will do. U-Mos (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Mahalo for the talk page message.
I'd totally forgotten about that... First 2 or so weeks no responses so it just slipped my mind. Anyhow, I did add the translations, correct Hawaiian phonology, i.e. using instead of ' and went through to ensure that characters were always being referred to in only one way. And in case you're wondering I do not speak Hawaiian, never even been there but since I have about 1 or 2% Maori and 1 or 2% Native Hawaiian ancestry I feel that we should be correct in our use of foreign terms. Plus I just like the show. I mean even though most people omit the macron on the a in Maori, the entire article uses it every time. I feel the same should be true for Hawaiian. Except of course for the actual word "Hawaii" which has almost fully assimilated into English as Hawaii. If I'm explaining this poorly, I created a mini-Manual of style on the talk page for the list and on the talk for the actual show.

Lilly (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

New User "Huh direction"; "Tablization" of List of Chopped episodes
Is User:Huh direction a new account of yours? I ask only because I see it was created today for the sole purpose of creating a template for the purpose of putting List of Chopped episodes into a table format, something you have been proposing. Immediately after "Huh direction" created the template, you started reformatting the article using the new template. If you are in fact "Huh direction", you should put a link on it to your main account, so that you don't run afoul of the WP:Sock puppetry policy. The policy does allow second accounts for legitimate purposes (e.g. to carry out maintenance tasks), but the policy on legitimate second accounts suggests that the second account should be clearly linked to the main account. You're a good editor, so I'd hate for some admin to stumble across the second account and come to the same conclusions as I have, but not realize that it's for maintenance purposes per WP:SOCK.
 * Of course, if you're not "Huh directions", you can totally ignore my comments and tell me to get bent. ;-)

BTW, I've added a "notes" line to the template. In the form of template that was created, there was no provision for this. I think from our discussions that it was acknowledged that not all the comments were trivial. Also, some of the comments that come at the start of some of the entries (e.g. the "champions" episodes), those comments can be put into the "notes" sections as well.

As for the "tablizing" that you have been doing, while I was not a big fan of the idea, it looks really good. Agent 86 (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, frankly, get bent. Not really, but why would you assume this was an alternate account? (not a sockpuppet, by the way -- there are provisions for users to have multiple accounts) Even vague insinuations like this can have pretty significant implications -- remember assumption of good faith (ahem!) and be very careful about the assumptions you make until they have some foundation.  I'm just glad the person, whoever he/she is, created the template; it's far above my proficiency with wiki-markup.  BTW, it wasn't me who proposed the episodes be put in a table.  It was another editor who tagged the article; I just agreed.


 * I've removed the notes parameter. The notes need to be there, but they go under a table, not in a table.  Check the Iron Chef America episode article for format.  The parameter as you created it makes the table much longer with too many empty cells in order to house too little information. Hang on until I finish Season 2, then I'll restore all the notes at once.  Also, it's really tough when we're editing "over" each other.  Let me finish season two, then we can talk about what needs to be done next aside from finishing the rest of the seasons.  That avoids a repeat of edits such as you removing the first-instance linking of the editors I'd very carefully done.  Drmargi (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant to expressly state I was assuming goog faith, but the invitation to tell me to get bent was the implied assumption. I just hate seeing when innocent actions get people caught up, and I'd hate for someone less familiar with things to stumble on it and make things difficult.


 * I think the notes should go with the specific episode. While I'm familiar with the ICA list, I find it particularly annoying to have to go to the footnotes and then back to the main part of the article. To me, the notes are akin to an "episode summary lite", and is a format common to many "list of (tv show)" articles. However, I'll wait and see what you do, but I really think it belongs with the episode.


 * As for editing over you, I stopped once I saw you were currently working on it. When I looked, it appeared the only editor working on it was Huh. Purhaps you might put undefined on the article while doing a major revision.


 * All in all, I must admit the new table format looks good. Great work.Agent 86 (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Great! Logistics sorted, and we'll avoid repetitive labor.  As for the notes in the table, tables are never done that way with the rare exception of single-row tables with a notes column, and I think we'll find the MOS will back me up.  If we had a lot of notes, I could see doing what you did, but we have very few, which leaves us with empty cells that are lightening rods for both trivia and editors who will remove them and the valuable notes as well.  This isn't the kind of show that needs an episode summary, "lite" or otherwise.  Let's finish the basic table, talk about it on the article talk page and see how it goes from there.  How's that?


 * Thanks for the clarification -- I understand your motives for the note above. For some reason, it just took me aback.  Sorry if I was heavy-handed; I tried a little humor but EPIC FAIL.  Drmargi (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI, before you posted your latest follow up, I added this issue to the article's talk page, plus invited comments on a few of the TV wikiproject pages. I had a longer comment about it for your talk page, but got conflicted out when I hit save.Agent 86 (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm so disappointed you reverted my last set of edits without doing a revision history check. There was no potential for edit conflicts, as you had said that you were done for the night. All I did was remove the overlinks. I did nothing to change the tables, format, or content. It took me three hours to remove all that linkcruft, so I'm feeling a little out of sorts about its revision.Agent 86 (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Trouble was, I was in the middle of converting seasons four and five, which created the edit conflict. You couldn't see it, which is why I asked you to please not edit over or ahead of me (more than once), and to be patient until the conversion is done.  I'm sorry you're out of sorts, but it takes me three to four hours to convert one season to table, and that's without having to go back and attempt to find, then correct the edits you made in the middle of the conversion.  Imagine how frustrated I was.  It was an outright nightmare to fix, so I had no choice but to revert.  Please, PLEASE just wait until the table conversion is done before you make any further edits.  I know you want to improve the article, but the idea was to collaborate, and you're just making things more difficult. Drmargi (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I took you at your word when you said you were done for the night. I had thought as part of the collaboration that you'd wake up and be able to work with a version that did not require you to remove all the linkcruft.Agent 86 (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And I took you at your word that you were going to stop editing until the tables were done, or I'd have warned you I had torn S4 and S5 (as I now have S6 and S7) apart to get them ready to move to table form. I know you wanted to be helpful, and I appreciate that, but I would really appreciate it if you'd stop editing until I finish the tables.  Right now, that's the best way you can help.  Then we can discuss what should/shouldn't be linked, and what needs to be done next.  Drmargi (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)
This was not vandalism. Imo, the quotes give the article a very in-universe touch. Somebody apparently put them there in place of properly verifiable review and analysis of the plot. The quotes convey the tone of the series in an unreflected way rather than contributing to a sober, neutral recounting of the narrative content. --87.78.48.131 (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is all fine. But with an IP editor, and absent both an edit summary and any discussion on the talk page, how is another editor to know?  This is a potentially controversial edit, as those quotes have been in the article for some time, and accumulated as they changed.  At the very least, the edit should have had a clearly explanatory edit summary.  Ideally, the edit was discussed before it was made, and then made only once you had consensus to remove the quotes.  As it is, to take them out with neither invited other editors to draw their own conclusions about why the quotes were removed.  Drmargi (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right, I should have used an edit summary. I'm lazy that way and imo the quotes are just so out of place and style that I deemed their removable non-controversial cleanup rather than a discussion-worthy edit.
 * But with an IP editor, and absent both an edit summary and any discussion on the talk page, how is another editor to know? -- I wasn't accusing you of anything, just clarifying that my edit was not a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity" of the article.
 * done only once you had consensus to remove the quotes [...] with neither invited other editors to draw their own conclusions about why the quotes were removed. -- BOLD, IAR and BRD say you're wrong about that.
 * More importantly, since you appear to be focused on the perceived accusatory content of my message (which, again, is far removed from my intentions), how about you focus on the edit itself rather than its circumstances? It is of crucial importance to your revert whether you believe that those quotes should be in there or not. Do you? If so, let's focus the discussion on the content of my edit, on those quotes. --87.78.48.131 (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, dear. Let's start over.  I didn't read accusatory content in anything you said.  Far from it.  But it's been my experience that IP editors require a good bit more explanation, and more basic explanation, of reverts, which is what you got.  I also wanted to be sure you understood why I did what I did, and why my rationale was what it was.  I recognize your intent now, but that wasn't clear at first -- another side effect of no edit summary.  Be aware, too that this particular article has had its issues with vandalism and other unexplained and/or controversial edits over the years.
 * The trouble with your suggestion is that, in this case, you can't really separate the edit from the circumstances of the edit. All edits should include an edit summary, and the three policies you cite operate in an environment that assume that a) editors will use edit summaries to explain their edits to others and b) that controversial edits will be discussed and made with the befit of consensus.  I think if you read the policies careful, you'll find editors are not given free license to remove content, but rather must do it in a way that informs the community and provides a starting point for discussion.  Otherwise, as I said before, you leave yourself wide open to a revert (that's the R in BRD, btw) such as I made.
 * As for the quotes, do they have a place in the article? Yes and no.  My biggest concerns are the big chunk of space they occupy and how little meaning they have chunked up together rather than attached to content relating to the season from which they come, along with the worrying fact that they are copyrighted material.  But the community's consensus has been that they have a place in the article as presented, and I would never have simply dropped in and taken them our, certainly not without allowing for discussion first.
 * So, if you feel strongly that they should come out, start a discussion on the article talk page. Who knows; no one may give a hoot, and you can take them out with implied consensus behind you.  (An aside: you're rather well-informed for an IP editor.  That will draw questions from some editors, many of whom may have suspicions about why an experienced editor isn't registered. Fair or not, that colors perceptions of an edit.)  Drmargi (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what the R in BRD stands for. I mentioned BRD since judging from your initial reply, you didn't appear to know about the B.
 * As to the quotes, community's consensus has been that they have a place in the article as presented. -- Hm. I perform edits in accordance with the spirit and wording of our policies and guidelines in mind rather than regarding a local consensus of typically more or less hiveminded people as overriding project-wide considerations.
 * To be perfectly clear: When I see something that to my best judgment goes against best practice, I never look at the talk page. I follow my own judgment, since (judging from experience) it's better guidance than a local discussion between a limited and likely likeminded group of editors, which is rather like tossing a coin with regard to the correctness of their conclusions (as evidenced imo by the inclusion of the quotations, in this form).
 * So what exactly is the problem with the quotes, according to me?
 * First of all and most crucially, it lacks proper attribution as required by Copyrights. A hyperlink or URL to the source or a copy, or at least a full list of the authors is strictly necessary for copyrighted material to be included. (To be completely honest, this was not an initial consideration for my edit, but looking through the applicable guidelines, I see now that this is actually the strongest reason to (a) leave the quotations as they currently are out of the article and to (b) liberally ignore any local talk page consensus to the contrary as invalid, based on overriding policy concerns.
 * Quotations says that "Overuse happens when a quotation is used without pertinence. This means that a quotation is visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained anywhere." -- This also applies. The quotes are there as a substitute for proper article prose. Their presence or relevance is never explained in the article.
 * The content of the quotations could be summarised in encyclopedic prose. Dumping the quotes in there is just lazy by the people who want that content included.
 * In all, the quotes need at least proper attribution. Even then, they still represent questionable style. Local consensus cannot override site-wide policy considerations, especially not copyright or essential stylistic issues. --87.78.48.131 (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * the three policies you cite operate in an environment that assume that a) editors will use edit summaries to explain their edits to others and b) that controversial edits will be discussed and made with the befit of consensus. -- Speaking from personal experience, an edit summary can sway only a tiny minority of users. Many people revert simply because they are ignorant about our P&G framework, and even when I link the applicable policy or guideline in the edit summary. Even more crucially, Wikipedia operates under the assumption that established editors take care to perform their edits in accordance with our core content policies and with awareness of our stylistic guidelines. When in doubt (as indicated by your edit summary "possible vandalism"), registered users really have no excuse for performing a revert without first taking a glance at the applicable project pages. They are supposed to know where to look stuff up.
 * editors are not given free license to remove content, but rather must do it in a way that informs the community and provides a starting point for discussion -- The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. In this case, the burden is twofold: Providing proper attribution, and writing the content of the quotations up as article prose (or at least explain the quotations' presence and relevance in the prose). --87.78.48.131 (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC) [Re-reading this, I hope it doesn't come across as too dickish. I guess I'm a bit jaded by negative experience with registered editors who frequently revert (mostly using Huggle or Twinkle) even in pretty much non-negotiable cases, without apparently looking at the edit itself, let alone first making an informed judgment based on the applicable policies and guidelines. The jadedness is my own issue, but the negligence of many established editors is a very real problem. --87.78.48.131 (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)]

205.209.83.211
I'm indeed happy he's made this first step. I have to admit I'm perplexed by his back-and-forth edits at Top Chef: Just Desserts, and his score of contentious edits and subsequent talk-page warnings are troubling. I guess the thing to do for now is keep a watch in case of non-constructive edits. Good to be working with you.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That editor seems to have pulled back for the moment. I'd say the proper course would be to just keep an eye on the editor's contributions page and to try, as hard as it is, to assume good faith. I've seen people change their behavior when they begin to realize it's necessary to be collaborative and to follow Wikipedia policies. Of course, I've also seen rogue editors whose behavior defies logic or common sense...! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Good call. I think this editor was given every good-faith benefit of the doubt, but this person is behaving very irresponsibly. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes.
 * And by the way, Ph.D. in philosophy? Very impressive! So many Wikipedia contributors appear to be intemperate high schoolers! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, clearly, to my eyes, a sockpuppet. I've had experienced reporting them. I'll be glad to handle that now while you keep an eye on this rogue editor. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've started off by notifying the admin who instituted the block, about this block evasion.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Noticed some conversation on the talk page of the IP User 205.209.83.211 and thought to give you a heads up. While the lack of edit summaries frustrate me to no end, the use is not a requirement on Wikipedia. That said, it is definitely good practice, tending to minimize the removal of user contributions. Consistent use also becomes a factor during requests for adminship, with RfA pages presenting statistics about how often the nominee has provided edit summaries in the past. All in all though, it's just not policy or a requirement. You can find more information about edit summaries here. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  15:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the heads up, but I know all that. But there's a little more to it than meets the eye if you're unfamiliar with the IP user's history, and in his/her case, it became a line in the sand that was needed to begin to curb some pretty aggressive editing practices, particularly on articles relating to elimination-style competition TV shows.  Drmargi (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm completely aware of his history, encouraging him on all fronts to use edit summaries. Due to a lack of rationale for arbitrarily blanking content, I simply reverted his edits and placed a warning for blanking content. Anything short of threatening a block for not using edit summaries, which is not a blockable offense. Honestly, I expect a return to the same after the week block is over. That said, I also expect a block for blanking, if the disruptive editing continues. I would recommend a user warning more inline with policy, such as placing an escalating blanking template, rather than offering empty threats for not using an edit summary. In the long run, we'll likely have better (and quicker) results. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  20:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to read my comments with a bit more care before accusing me of making empty threats. All my comments relating to blocks has to do with his/ her edit warring and disruptive editing, which DID eventually result in a block.  Assumption of good faith extends to other editors' talk pages. Drmargi (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly no accusation is intended, my apologies if the intent of my comment has been misimplied. This is not an indictment of your editing practices, but rather support offered, which may assist you in receiving better results in the future when encountering a disruptive editor. My comments have been presented, based on a misunderstanding of policy, indicated on the above referenced IP user's talk page.( use of edit summaries [or lack thereof] is not applicable to policy.) ( failure to use edit summaries is not a blocking offense.) The talk page shows that you have made threats to report another editor, based on his lack of edit summaries. While use of edit summaries is important and valuable within a collaborative community, the use is not required, as determined by the community. The community provides for a single-level notification, rather than escalated user warnings, for failing to use edit summaries. You have indicated that continued lack of edit summary use would result in an ANI report. Use of edit summaries is again, neither required nor a blockable offense. You have also presented a misunderstanding of WP's blocking policy. The IP user was not blocked earlier, due to lack of process for that result. See also, when to report. The escalated process at this link would have resulted in a block, following just one act of disruptive editing and a report to AIV. This was never done. Overall, this IP user is a fairly new editor of four months. While it is clear that the editing was disruptive, some of the responses this editor has received have been inaccurate, based on a misunderstanding of policy. Responding to new users with excessive force (i.e., misapplication of policy, threats, and warnings using bold/all caps and not in accordance with policy) can discourage them from editing in the future. While I fully believe that your communication with this other editor has been offered in good faith, you might consider suggesting editing standards and practices; and presenting reasoning, based on community guidelines and policies, rather than visually yelling and offering threats to other editors. A report to ANI or AIV for failure to provide edit summaries would be fruitless, essentially, an empty threat. Please note, the IP was blocked for vandalism and abusing multiple accounts, rather than failure to use edit summaries. While it is clear that the user's edits were disruptive, failure to use edit summaries is not applicable to vandalism. You can find additional information about the blocking policy here. Here is a list of multi-level user warning templates. You may also be interested in utilizing Twinkle for addressing vandalism. Again, my desire in contacting you is not to present an indictment, but to offer guidance which may present better results in your interaction with other editors in the future. If you are not able to receive this offer of support at this time, it will be in your talk page history for future reference. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you ever need assistance or have questions in the future. If you have concerns regarding my communication here and effort to offer support, you may notify others, here. Best regards,  Cind.  amuse  05:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a fine old adage about leading a horse to water. Your intent appears to demonstrate what you see as your superior knowledge, and in so doing, to make me feel as stupid as possible. A short course in human nature would teach you that unsolicited "support" tends to result in behavior opposite that desired.  I reiterate: your reading of my comments is erroneous, and your advise based on your own misunderstanding of what I said.  I have no interest in using the ANI.  Rather, I consider this discussion at an end.  Drmargi (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

CSI work
Thanks for your diligent work keeping the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation article tidy and clean. Your efforts are awesome! JguyTalkDone 13:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! And thank you for the kind words, particularly coming as they did after the exchange above.  Drmargi (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Heyhello1234567 (talk) 09:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)don't revert top chef changes okay....my changes have made the article better only so plx

Luka Kovac's wife and daughter
Thank you for the info and for reverting my wrong edit. Cheers TRBP   talk  19:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Meanwhile
That's a very good point, which I've noticed too in the past month or so. I've been missing a lot of the episodes and writing summaries before watching them, and then haven't been going back to fix them later on. I'll go through and tweak the recent ones in the near future though. Thanks for letting me know. Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Southland
Why must you insist on separating the airing dates amongst the NBC and TNT runs in the infobox? All other television shows on Wikipedia list the original run dates from beginning to end, regardless of whether a program was cancelled and then picked up by another network. Freshh (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's accurate. What other articles do (and I doubt you've surveyed every one of them, so avoid using all) doesn't, by default, govern what is done with this one.  As you gain more experience, you'll realize that lock-step uniformity doesn't work for this project.  Drmargi (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Delinking of "well known" locations.
I noticed that you reverted my links in Restaurant: Impossible. When you referred to MoS, were you referring to OVERLINK, specifically where it says "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, nations, languages, religions, and common professions"? It doesn't say "well known", but says "major". I am not sure what is "major" and what is not, but you failed to notice that two state capitals (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Providence, Rhode Island) as well as another major city (Jacksonville, Florida) were and still are linked from the article. My objective there was if you are going to link some of the cities, you may as well link all of them. Perhaps this is wrong, but where do you draw the line? --rogerd (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

John Carter (again)
Please see the talk page on John Carter (ER). I wish to reignite the discussion on Carter's appointment as an attending physician. This issue (for some reason) seems very close to your heart, even though it is plainly obvious (having just watched season 10 and 11) over the past week that Carter is an attending. There are more than several references, and I'm sorry I didn't record them now given the constant changing you have had on the page. I am going to go scan through the episodes quickly to spot the references besides the one I have noted on the talk page. Regards, Vivara (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Any thoughts?
I'm planning to start WikiProject White Collar. A user has already supported my proposal. Any thoughts? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss
I do not want to start a revert war, but it is very hard to discuss with you since you only communicate in edit summaries. Please read WP:V and WP:OR and explain how YOU can interpret a primary source and use that to override a secondary source?? That is what WP:OR talks about. When you remove a source you should at least add a new source! Please do that! --Stefan talk 01:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Next Iron Chef
If you feel that describing the contestants for Season 4 using full sentences rather than sentence fragments, please discuss this change first on the article's Discussion page. Do not simply revert another editor because you disagree. Thank you. --Crunch (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on! This is about wounded feelings and some old grudge you can't get past.  Those additions are wordy and add nothing; the don't need discussion.  And WATCH IT with the accusations of bad faith.  Your judgment is a bit compromised where such things are concerned, but it's time to get over whatever it is you're still clinging to like a life raft.  Drmargi (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Awesome, thank you! Kevinbrogers (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! It was woefully overdue.  Drmargi (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Broken link in Abby Lockhart
The link to Abby Lockhart's biography in ER headquarters is broken because that webpage no longer exists. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Episodes are rarely shot where the are set; nothing special about this instance.
Hi, Re your recent revert of a reference addition to CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (season 4), I wonder if you could have a quick look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Replacement of individual episodes with redirects to season pages and then understand why I am currently face planted on my keyboard :) Scillystuff (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw the reverts you did to all the redirects, and am on your side. Ideally, WP:BRD recommends you discuss when you revert (I could have, too, when I reverted a few, but thought I was dealing with vandalism until much later), but that ship has sailed.  Really, the original editor should have discussed the edits before ever making them -- there's bold and then there's a change of this magnitude that's potentially very controversial, as bare and stubby as some of the articles are.  Not smart.  On the other hand, the little edit I just reverted didn't make sense, but if it's a means to an end, I'm happy to talk it out here.  Now, get your face off the keyboard and carry on! Drmargi (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I must admit it was mostly laughter :) I only made the one revert to the Jackpot episode redirect, Spidey104 reverted all of the others and then JDDJS reverted them back into redirects (they both now have 3RR warnings). I copied the reference out of the stub article into the season guide and then you reverted that change. Just for a moment it all seemed absurdly funny. I know the edit I made just didn't fit in the plot summary, but without an individual article it is a little orphan Fawnskin with no place to go. I didn't know that the Las Vegas desert exteriors are actually shot in the Santa Clarita area, as I live in Hampshire (the old one) and it's not big on desert. When I found the Jackpot location info two years ago I thought it was notable for being in CA (ha). Oh well. Scillystuff (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere to Hide
I have that movie and the plot summary on that movie is incomplete. That 1987 movie is rarely seen on tv and I don't know what should write on the plot section on it. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your hyperlink goes to a disambiguation page. Which version (year) of the film are you referring to?  That will help.  Drmargi (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed the hyperlink. You should have the year of it now. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd fill out the summary so that it's more complete. If you're familiar with the film, you know what needs to be there.  You could also add a cast list or description of the characters.  Take a look at a few other movie articles, and you'll get a good idea of what's usually done. Drmargi (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. I should be able to start working on that movie tomorrow or the next day. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I was able to fill out the plot summary on Nowhere to Hide and got to close to be accurate as possible. What do you think? BattleshipMan (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Project Accessory
Thanks for the suggestion, I've put the notice on the IP's talk page too, though I note that this editor is indeed using both the account and the IP virtually simultaneously, so we can assume he/she has read the notice at the Worstcook talk page by now. Thanks for the help, Sparthorse (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystic River
I think the movie's official site has been removed since Warner Bros. probably remove it from their site. I may have to remove the link. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
 Swarm   X 04:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
 Swarm   X 11|11|11 23:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Downton Abbey & Debrett's
Hullo. You've made a few edits to Downton Abbey, namechecking Debrett's in your edit summaries. I don't know why you're doing so, because your edits directly contrast with the advice of Correct Form (which I have in front of me) on the correct styling of members and relatives of this realm's peerages. For instance, an earl would never be "The Rt Hon John, Earl Smith" but always "The Rt Hon The Earl Smith" – hence why I had used parantheses to indicate the Earl's and Countesses' forenames. What's more, while dowagers are often today styled "Name, Countess Whatever", a century ago, "The Dowager Countess Whatever" was by far more common (Violet is often referred to as such in the programme). Also, "Lady Jane Jones" is a style shortened from "The Lady Mary Crawley" – true, she is not "The Lady Crawley" (like a peeress), but The Lady is correct. I hope you won't object to my reinstating the tables as I wrote it (which was also in order of precedence). DBD 11:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's already a discussion, and link, on the article talk page. Please check it out.  Drmargi (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Restaurant: Impossible
I disagree with your rationale for the revert. "Rewrite gives undue attention to allegations with no substantiation. It's easy to whine in the media after the fact, and this level of detail is not needed." I substantiated criticisms by owners of the two restaurants Chef Irvine made over. Your version reads like a press release in places. GeorgeC (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii Five-0 info
Does that stuff really belong in the episode summary? --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 05:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I know what you mean. Drmargi (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edit restored one of the two unnecessary lines. The other I didn't know if I should've removed it. However, seeing as though you later removed them entirely, it's now a non-issue, so sorry for bothering you. :P --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 21:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured that out after I backtracked and saw what happened. I'm not sure how it didn't all revert the first time, but that's what I meant to do, and must have made a mistake.  Drmargi (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Pan Am (TV series)
There's a current RfC at the talk page for Pan Am (TV series) - would you mind taking a look and possibly commenting? Thanks, Lhb1239 (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I responded, although I'm not sure how pleased with my response you'll be. But it's honest.  Drmargi (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding a comment that you made today: "As it stands, this article, absent more than superficial description of the individual characters aside from one recurring character, and with minimal other content, has very little to recommend it. It's a shame the editors seem far more dedicated to parsing procedure and arguing over order of cast, reviews and anything else they set their minds than in actually developing a substantive article." I think that's an excellent appraisal. Some editors have tried to contribute, but are being held back somewhat by ownership issues demonstrated by one particular editor. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! You know me; I have pretty good "hang in there" skills, but I finally walked away, the little toe-rag and his pals made me so nuts.  That article is plagued by two factions, both with ownership issues.  There was no interest in what made the article readable, or what was cohesive or coherent; it was all about imaginary "rules" one particular editor does not understand, and how they could be forced on others.  I think there was a lot of canvassing going on off-Wiki as well.  Worse, he derailed two RfC's with off-topic remarks.  (Vent, vent, vent....)  I got the sense it was all in service of some sort of grudge that followed an outcome on one of the teeny TV shows, to the degree he's lost all perspective.  Funnily enough, I nearly hollered for you a couple times, it was getting so out of hand, and I always find you are a good person to call on when some perspective is needed. Drmargi (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm always pleased with other editors take place and comment honestly, with good faith, and without an agenda at an RfC. No matter what the opinion.  It's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work.  If, however, in your comments below (those highlighted by "ownership" and "toe-rag" and making bad-faith assumptions about what "interest" is being served) you are in any way referring to me specifically, I'm not pleased about that.  At all.  For all kinds of reasons, but mostly because those kind of comments are counter-productive and create a "us-versus-them" atmosphere which results in a non-collegial and uncooperative editing experience.  Those kind of comments focus on editors rather than editing and are definitely not helpful nor are they productive.  Lhb1239 (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You'd have a point were my comments on the article talk page. But they're not.  They're on my talk page and in response to the similar concerns of another editor.  If you choose to own some or all of what I said, so be it.  Perhaps your anger is an indicator that I've hit a nerve, which could serve as a warning to take a step back and examine your motives or behavior on the article.  It's up to you.  Assumption of bad faith is a non-issue; I'm no longer actively editing on the article, and am free to make whatever observations about the conduct of the editors there I care to.  The issue there isn't about faith, good, bad or otherwise.  It's about personal agendas and the need to win at the expense of the article.  Meanwhile, the article is a mess.  Drmargi (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL! You aren't suggesting that WP:AGF only applies to certain areas within Wikipedia, are you?  What's more, you seem to believe that making non-AGF statements are only non-AGF when you're editing the same article as the editor you are being non-AGF with (which is also as humorous as your first misunderstanding of when AGF applies).  For what it's worth, I didn't say whether I "choose to own" anything you or the other editor said, I inquired as to whom you were referring.  As far as the "anger" you are assigning to me: no, I just checked, and I neither am angry now, nor was I when I posted my comments above.  And if you feel the article is such a mess, why not do something about it?  After all, you appear to believe you're not about personal agendas or winning at the expense of the article.  Contributing to fixing an article they believe is a mess is something someone who truly cared about the project as a whole as well as the article would do.  Someone who has an agenda and needs to win wouldn't.  Which category do you fall into? (and thanks for the heartiest laugh of the day, BTW ;-)  Lhb1239 (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"Please read Jo on how and when links are used" ?
I appreciate (a lot!) you keeping an eye on the Restaurant:_Impossible page, but I'm rather confused by your edit summaries reverting my link addition. Could you expand on what you meant by this edit summary? What, or who, is "Jo", and what does it have to do with appropriate external links? JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That should say "up". My iPad's spell checker occasionally decides it knows better than I do, with some peculiar results.  Drmargi (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hah. No worries.  It did prompt me to re-read WP:EL, and I (sadly) agree with you that the link is borderline.  Your thoughts on my (somewhat tentative) suggestion of a "subject's responses" section (on the Talk:Restaurant:_Impossible page) would be gratefully appreciated.  I will probably wander off into the distance, and may not check-in again for a long time, however. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Top Chef (season 8)". Thank you. --Stefan talk 04:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Tis the season


MarnetteD | Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

Many thanks for all your work here at WikiP. I hope that you have a wonderful 2012. MarnetteD | Talk 22:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Burn Notice.
I got the Information about Season Six from Bruce Campbell. Bruce Campbell plays Sam Axe in Burn Notice. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeeker123 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.bruce-campbell.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=560
 * I see your point but I was there. I guess the pilot and he confirm it. Bruce Campbell was blown away that I knew so much. He even ask me how I find out about it. I told him a lucky guess. If you are all thinking that I am making stuff up, why should I even waste my time trying to help Wikipedia? Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeeker123 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of you making stuff up. It's a matter of our being unable to take your word for it.  This isn't a fan page, and the evidentiary standard is higher.  The forum you cite verifies he made the appearance and a little of what was said,  But it doesn't verify the content you're attempting to add.  Drmargi (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Downton Abbey
"Dowager is using in some forms" - can you explain what this is supposed to mean? --Shylock&#39;s Boy (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * First, it should have been "used", a typo that didn't help. Second, when another editor and I researched correct styles, we used the correct written form of each character's name (see the last entry on the Debrett's page you linked).  In that form, Dowager is not used.  Thus, it is used in some forms of address, but not others.  And to be consistent with the form we used in the table, it should not be included in the Dowager's entry.  There's already a discussion on the talk page, if you'd care to join in.  --Drmargi (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Top Gear (2002 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Honda Cub (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A Good Day to Die Hard (2013)
Hey, someone created a page of the upcoming fifth Die Hard movie with the year on the title. I think the year should be removed since I don't think there are any other links that are titled A Good Day to Die Hard. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone took care of the problem regarding the year on the title link to A Good Day to Die Hard since they found out it was unnecessary. BattleshipMan (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on West Wing series table episode
Hi. What I intended as a simple edit to clarify the meaning of a column, I now realize is contrary to an editing position you appear to hold. Do the current column headings and numbering in the episode list for West Wing Season 7 work for you? (Series No.; Episode No.) I looked at a number of featured lists and found little consistency, but this seemed to be the clearest and most meaningful format (least ambiguous). I found it confusing when the heading was "Season". I was not clear if it meant "Episode # in the season" or "Season #" when scrolling down a multi-season list of episodes. My logic is that a table heading is a descriptor for the data in the table (I'm a technical writer). The numbering format of a single column containing "7-1 (133)" as in Seasons 1-6, I feel, is clear as well. What do you think?

PS: I notice the individual season pages are consistent to the labeling you reverted on Dec 23.

PPS: Happy New Year!D1doherty (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

List of iCarly episodes
There's a debate going on at Talk:List of iCarly episodes regarding how to distinguish the beginning of a new season. I thought you'd be interested, and I'm having a little trouble explaining my position. If we don't agree, that's fine as well, I just thought you might be able to provide some insight into this. Thanks! Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a show I watch, but I'll have a look in and see if I can help. --Drmargi (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Top Chef Season 9 Contestant Progress
soooo..... I realize I probably edited that section a bit too rashly and checked the history afterwards to see that a previous similar modification didn't make the cut. However. I really think it is misleading to not include ALL contestants in the list of contestants, even those who were eliminated in episodes one and two. If nothing else, the labels at the top should be renumbered to correspond to episode numbers as putting a 1 above a column for episode 3 is misleading. just my thoughts. new to big article editing in wikipedia so feel free to crush me. Abbey (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to crush on you -- have a little faith in people! You are right about the top numbering; I shouldn't have reverted that, but didn't think about the difference at the time, so chalk that up to force of habit.  As for the rest, there's a discussion on the talk page for the show; why not jump in and make your feelings known?  --Drmargi (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, i visited Txikito in NYC owned by Alex Raig, it's a tapas bars, and she serves basque cuisine, under what authority do you have to discount what i write, as for sawyer, i read his greenhouse restaurant page, he likes to do organic cooking, he prefers to make items grown within his own region of Ohio, you seem to discount me quite a lot, marge, what gives?
 * So? Check the message I left on your IP page.  We need sources, and your word doesn't work.  Moreover, we don't add the specialization until the episode is broadcast, and then based on how the chef is described.  Please stop forcing the edit and be patient until the episodes run.  As, please do not edit another editor's comments as you did above, and sign your posts with four tildes.  Drmargi (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You're a doctor and you didn't google her name, it's a basque name. you want a source, www.txikitonyc.com see who the chef is, i google the chef names to know their speciality before they appear on the show, don't take out her flag icon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mktriton (talk • contribs) 06:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not my responsibility to Google and check your unsourced edits. It's your responsibility to provide reliable sources that they are accurate.  You are basing your conclusions about Chef Raij on the food at one of three restaurants she and her husband own.  We go by how she describes it in her pre-battle interview, which is contemporary Spanish, and that's what goes in the table.  You will save yourself a lot of disappointment and hassle if you stop trying to anticipate what the show will do, watch it, and edit based on what we're told there.  The article is about the show, not the chefs.  You're going to continue to have the problems you're having with these edits until you read up on how to edit and how to provide reliable, verifiable sources.  --Drmargi (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Top Gear
06:19, 13 January 2012 (diff | hist) Top Gear (U.S. TV series) ‎ (Undid revision 471095614 by 122.179.49.86 (talk) Another one who needs to grow up; and you've confused the US and UK versions.) (top)

So you agree Top Gear needs to grow up. And also that the UK version of Top gear is the one that is racist :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.222.46 (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Leverage in Portland and WP:OWNership
Hi, thank you for reconsidering my minor add to the Leverage page. I appreciate your ongoing efforts in keeping that article relatively free of the fancruft that fills so many WP articles about TV series.

However when someone has been doing that sort of shepherding on an article for so long, it is sometimes difficult to avoid kneejerk or WP:OWNership-like reactions to others' edits... particularly if they are similar in some way to edits reverted before.

If anything I'd say that none of the info on filming locations or settings really belongs in the lede; to me, it's not important enough. But I don't feel strongly enough about that to bother with an edit, and I have to say that "drmargi will just revert if I try it" did cross my mind and entered into my decision to leave it alone. Please consider each new edit on its own merits; editors should not have to argue for every change to an article. Thanks for your consideration. Jeh (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I see assuming good faith is not in your skill set, particularly given you drew a reasonable conclusion for what actually happened, then cast that aside to assume the worst. --Drmargi (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I was not assuming bad faith. I was assuming that the same thing, having happened once, might happen again. Given the immediate history, I don't think that was an unreasonable assumption. And I was concluding that the edit I had in mind wasn't worth the time it might then take to argue for it. Which is the main reason I shared this with you: I thought you might appreciate that a page history with a long series of reverts, almost all by the same person, can have a "chilling effect" on other editors... regardless of whether they assume good faith... and this should be avoided if possible. (I think this is a fairly widespread problem on WP, not just at Leverage, and sometimes it is due to outright and obvious WP:OWNership.) I confess I don't know how to balance that against the need to keep excessive character detail, etc., out of this particular article. Jeh (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio
Can you please not undo edit with the reason Copyvio without either specifying a source or getting back to me? I did type that summary myself and didn't copy it anywhere. So if you pointed out where you thought it was copyrighted then I could have changed it. Thanks. Xitur (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

About Touch TV Canada Premiere date
Please Look this two page http://eztv.it/ep/32703/touch-s01e01-hdtv-xvid-lol/ http://www.globaltv.com/touch/video/1+++1++3/video.html?v=2190118105&p=1&s=dd#touch/video Qa003qa003 (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You can also view GlobalTV microblogging https://twitter.com/#!/global_tv . The official website of why there is a picture that premiered in March may change the plan did not change the information on the official website, but whole sections of the official website has been watching the first episode.Qa003qa003 (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is much simpler. The reader cannot understand what you've written because of syntax and grammar errors. --Drmargi (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

CSI - Diebenkorn Russell
Go to CBS's video's page for CSI and click the clip entitled Diebenkorn Russell. Click the info link and read where it states that Jules is revealing D.B.'s real name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.6.5 (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This should be discussed on the article talk page. It is not my responsibility to find the clip.  Provide a link, and refrain from reverting while there is an open discussion.  --Drmargi (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

-Here is a link for that video. You will find that even CBS is revealing D.Bs Real name in the description of the video. So this should be enough reference and support to officially change D.Bs name to: D.B. Diebenkorn Russell -Also Julie's nickname Finn is actually spelt with two n's as she states this in the episode "Seeing Red" (She states it to Sara & Morgan) -Thanks- 81.105.136.10 (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC) J.
 * 1) http://www.cbs.com/shows/csi/video/2197143589/csidiebenkorn-russell

List of Iron Chef America episodes and Tsuchiya Hikaru
I note your reversion of T. H.'s deletion of a category from this list. Thank you. T.H. has persistently been rearranging categories and attempting to have them deleted out of process, simply by emptying them without comment as he did to this link. Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't see a good reason for removing it, and absent an edit summary, I tend to restore such deletions. I'll keep an eye out for others like it.  --Drmargi (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on User talk:NCISfan2
I saw your comment on User talk:NCISfan2 and it was indented under my last comment. Are you referring to me when you said, "admin who clearly has a shared interest in a topic where NCISfan2 might potentially edit coaching him on how to appeal a block"? If you are I am not sure what shared interests NCISfan2 and I have, can you please enlighten me? If not you should make it clear in your post who you are talking about. Thanks GB fan 17:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!
Why cant you post Facebook links on the Wiki pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexpotter1996 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Lady Sybil Branson
I don't agree with your reversions. The daughter of an earl is automatically entitled to be styled "Lady" whether she does so or not. On the other hand, a wife does not automatically have to take her husband's surname on marriage. The article assumes Sybil has done so, and I don't want to get involved in that discussion after seeing it on the talk page. But as far as the title is concerned, if you're going to make one assumption and call her Branson, you need to call her "Lady" too. The editor who originally removed "Lady" from the article made the assertion in his edit summary that the title goes with the family name, and so Sybil would not be entitled to it. This is incorrect, and may be a misunderstanding other viewers of the series have, so it's doubly important to include it.  J Rawle  (Talk) 12:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The other point is, we do know that Rosamund was married to Mr Marmaduke Painswick, a man with no title. In any case, the only way that she could be Lady Rosamund, as opposed to Lady Painswick, is to be the daughter of an earl. If she was using a title by virtue of her husband being a knight or peer, she would be Lady Painswisk. In one episode, Sir Richard Carlisle calls her "Lady Painswick" and she corrects him.

If you still doubt that the daugher of an earl retains the style "Lady" after marriage to someone without a title, please see the article on Lady or Debretts article on daughters of an earl.  J Rawle  (Talk) 12:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

COI
DrMargi, I feel that as we have a dispute on the Tea (Meal) article it was inappropriate for you to place a warning on my page, as this is clearly a conflict of interest. Please ask a neutral administrator to assess my behavior if you feel necessary. Sincerely, Dr. Njsustain, Ph.D. Njsustain (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Restaurant Impossible restaurant status column
I'm afraid I don't understand your comment about why you removed the status column I added. There is no reference to it on the Talk page for the article, which is what your message seemed to indicate. OLEF641 (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My mistake; I should have referred you to the Kitchen Nightmares and Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares talk page archives. We've discussed status updates and the issues surrounding them to death, and standing consensus remains no inclusion of status updates.  That, then, would also apply to Restaurant Impossible given the policy issues, focus and problems surrounding the updates are the same.  --Drmargi (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Touch (TV series) edit
If the information I copied from previous entries was copyrighted, thanks for the revert. I have zero wish to risk harm upon Wikipedia, as the ultimate goal is praiseworthy. I'll retain your entry on my talk page, as it is noteworthy in trends of an editor. Hopefully, I'll get positive entries as well in the future!Wzrd1 (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding Season Section to Table before season airs?
Kevinbrogers made this edit and I asked him why as the show was renewed for a new season and when you click on the "2" for season 2 it bring you down to the Season 2 section with the information. Kevin told me to ask you as you told him about the Burn Notice when it was renewed for 3 seasons. Other pages have new season listed in the table (Such as Law & Order: SVU), what is bad about it being listed? There's no policy that says we cannot have it, I feel it's rather a personal preference. - Alec2011 (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's too early, and all you have is a table full of TBA (empty cells). Once we have information about the premiere date and the previous season has ended, that's when the new seasons are added to these tables.  --Drmargi (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Who says? is there a policy we have to do that? I'd rather have it so when you click on "2" for season 2 it brings you down the page to that season section. - Alec2011 (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's established practice, an outgrowth of consensus among the community and alignment with use of tables in articles. If you disagree, the article has a talk page.  Raise the issue there.  --Drmargi (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft copyedit
Hiya,

I have not finished this request for comment but it pretty much done hopefully be finished within next few weeks can you start to edit it User:Andrewcrawford/mydraft Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit of help desk post
can you copyedit this one for me so i might be able to get a reply that might help Help_desk you can use the template which will put this response  so showing i have permission to do it not logged into my account User:andrewcrawford--92.235.241.39 (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm working on it, but it's slow going. I have to be careful because I'm American! --Drmargi (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * dnt worry to much even if you make it american English it still read better than what i put Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 20:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit on this post is done, too. That template works nicely! --Drmargi (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hart of Dixie
We'll he did it again:, &. QuasyBoy (talk)  02:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I reverted and added to the talk page. He seems to feel he's going to tell other editors what they can and cannot do, so that's potentially a problem.  He seems unaware of how SIZERULE works, and is following the example of articles that have enough seasons to merit a split.  He also seems driven by having a place for DVD details and cover art more than by building an article of any substance.  --Drmargi (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Hart of Dixie episodes
How is it that these people read the notes and then blatantly ignore them? At least it's not as bad as NCIS: Los Angeles (season 4). I've had to add copious notes there and then even had to restore the little amount that was actually cited because somebody didn't read the ref. --01:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Because they think it's a fan site. That last edit summary said it all -- the fans read Wikipedia for information on the show.  You and I both know those titles are very likely coming from SpoilerTV.com or its ilk.  Let the fans go read all about it there.  BTW, do you follow the CSI shows?  We've got an issue with episodes with cliffhangers being labeled as Part 1 and Part 2 (with no source to support it).  I've reverted that over and over and over again.  --Drmargi (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

AN/I
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TRLIJC19 ( talk  •  contribs ) 06:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A little Dr Who memorabilia for you
Well Asylum o/t D's certainly was emotional and gets the new season off to a great start. I do wish that the ICU ward Daleks had the little button blinkers on the top of their head (instead of the great big light bulbs that come from the films) that were prevalent in the Classic series but that is probably just me being oldy woldy stodgy crotchety. Thought I would share this bit of classic series memorabilia with you. In my meanderings around wikipedia I came across this article Aristide Bruant with the accompanying picture by Lautrec. It reminded me of a Dr Who poster that I bought at the 20th anniversary convention in Chicago in 1983 (can 28+ years really have gone by?) Unfortunately, it went astray in a long distance move that I endured back in the 90's but thanks to the internet I was able to track down this website which has a picture of it. I enjoy how creative fans of a given show can be. Cheers and have a wonderful week. MarnetteD | Talk 13:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remember that era Daleks, but was never into Doctor Who then; a friend liked the Tom Baker ones and I'd watch with her, but it wasn't my thing at that time. I came back to the series when Derek Jacobi did "Utopia" and regenerated into John Simm.  Those two finally got my attention!  I'm what might be best described as a selective scifi fan.  I must confess, I'm tempted to brave ComicCon one of these years.  --Drmargi (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * John Simm had a batch of brilliant performances in the 00's (one friend dubbed them the aughts). You've probably already seen these but if not I can highly recommend State of Play (TV serial) and Life on Mars (TV series). They both keep you guessing but in entirely different ways. Please send pics when you hit the "ComicCon". MarnetteD | Talk 00:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * State of Play lives on my iPad, and I loved Life on Mars. If you watch Leverage, last week's episode drew heavily from Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes.  --Drmargi (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

New message in your talk page archive
Someone has posted a new message in your talk page archive here. Since a bot is managing your talk page I am not sure if you have noticed it. --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm new to wiki and I want to let you know that I was in no way trying to "war" with you. (I just discovered that you were the cause of my edits going into the ether when you messaged me today in my "talk". I just thought I was doing something wrong and that my edit was just disappearing.)

I simply thought that wiki was supposed to contain the most up to date information and that the second season voice-over would be of importance. I'm not one for bureaucracy when it comes to adding facts to wiki articles. I wouldn't know what facts should and shouldn't be added.

I think I'll refrain from attempting to edit any more on wiki. It's just not what I thought it would be. Not intuitive at all. Thanks for enlightening me before I spent time trying to figure it out. --Xenophoric (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to leave; you just have to learn the ways of Wikipedia. It's not so bad once you get used to it.  Why not discuss on the talk page, and see what happens?  --Drmargi (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! After you pointed me in the right direction, "Talk" and "New Section", I think I'm finally getting how this works. I left a comment in the Voiceover sub-box area. --Xenophoric (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Attaboy/girl. Hang in there.  It's not as free-form as Wikia around these parts, but you'll soon get the hang of it.  --Drmargi (talk) 11:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Iron Chef America episodes/Archive 1
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of List of Iron Chef America episodes/Archive 1, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Talk:List of Iron Chef America episodes. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've never been able to work out how Wikipedia pages can be copyvios of other Wikipedia pages. Sure the bot can check for that? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This was my mistake; I'm just learning how to do archives ('bout time!) and I both mis-titled the first one and copied (rather than cut-and-pasted) the content when I moved it to be sure I didn't screw up, which seems to have sent the 'bot into a frenzy. I've G7'd this, and created the correct archive.  Growing pains. --Drmargi (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Judgement/Judgment on POI
That's fine. When it comes to titles, spelling, grammar, etc. I mainly do 'drive-by edits' only, in that I rarely have an affinity to the subject matter of the article. Admittedly I was hesitant about using IMDb as a reference, but since I was unable to find any screenshots of the DVD menu or an official CBS episode list, I went by what I saw most prominently. No worries. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Kitchen Nightmares
A new editor is changing the episode numbering at Kitchen Nightmares. You might care to have a look, since it seems you know more about the issue than me, based on this discussion. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw that last night as I was heading for bed. I'll review the discussion and lend a hand if I can.  (Meanwhile, sorry to see you're getting quite the bollocking over one error!  Seems a bit much...) --Drmargi (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I tagged the editor for 3RR (we EC'd), and started a discussion, as you've seen. I wish I could remember why we didn't number them originally; I think it was because the first was a free-standing special rather than a season episode.  --Drmargi (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The editor emailed me, claiming he didn't know how to post on my talk page, not that I asked him to post there at all. It's strange that he's able to post in articles fine. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we've rolled out the red carpet now. It's always hard to deal with an editor who's gotten his/her dander up.  --Drmargi (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Issues with user doing unnecessary editing on film infoboxes.
Drmargi, I need you to solve the issue of this user in this IP address 93.65.126.6. He's been doing some unnecessary editing of the film infoboxes on various films, including Olympus Has Fallen, Ted, Man of Steel, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, etc. This user's contributions should tell you about it. BattleshipMan (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how I can solve the problem. I'm not an administrator, and can only issue a warning, which you've more than adequately done already.  If the editor's edits are problematic, you might consider requesting page protection.  --Drmargi (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * How am I supposed to do that? He's been disrupting the film infoboxes on seperate films, like I said above. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Food Trucks
Hello again. With all you have told me about the food trucks in your town I thought you would enjoy this pic of this years winner in the "Peeps" diorama contest that the Denver Post holds annually. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is one more that will bring a grin . MarnetteD | Talk 22:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * These are HILARIOUS! I'll have to send them to my pals who own the trucks.  I'll send you some deets on them via e-mail.  --Drmargi (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just found one in honor of the Drs 50th!!! . MarnetteD | Talk 23:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OMG! I'm working my way through.  You can sure see what people are watching! --Drmargi (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am doing the same. You will find another Dalek and several for Les Miz. The Van Gogh ones are because the Denver Art Museum had an exhibit of his work here last year. Here is one more for any of your talk page watchers whoever created it has a wicked sense of humor. MarnetteD | Talk 23:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sending the article on to a friend. What a treat! --Drmargi (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope they enjoy it as much as we have. I only just noticed that the Dr Who diorama was made by a six year old!! Clever child to include a stone angel peep. MarnetteD | Talk 04:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It was amazing how clever some of them were. So much humor and a lot of pride in Denver, too.  I just laughed and laughed as I looked at them! --Drmargi (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello
I just saw you removed my last message. I think you might have misunderstood my motives behind it. I was just trying to show my reasoning behind their inclusion. Wasn't getting at you or anything. Have a nice evening. MisterShiney   ✉    22:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, no, I understood, and we're good. I'm just weary of all the testosterone and the complete lack of consensus building on the article.  I have better places to put my energies.  --Drmargi (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding that earlier post, WP:REDNOT says "Red links to personal names should be avoided" and explains this: "Frequently a red-linked name has been placed in an article, and subsequently a different editor has created an article about an entirely different person with the same or a similar name. Aside from the basic misidentification this causes, red-linking has led to notable, but not very prominent persons being incorrectly identified on Wikipedia as accused or convicted criminals, sex workers, or persons involved in or associated with other forms of conduct they might consider disreputable. This is especially concerning when dealing with living people." In short, it's best not to create a link to a person until they have an article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's very amusing to see how different policies contradict each other sometimes. But I must confess I didn't read it extensively last time I looked, but did a quick find text about info boxes. Apologies if I came accross as dickish. MisterShiney    ✉    13:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
I am so terribly sorry. I should've realized about what I did was wrong about committing plagiarism and violating copyright from Person of Interest Wiki. I hate to you this, but I am even-tempered. You know Piers Anthony once said "When one person makes an accusation, check to be sure he himself is not the guilty one. Sometimes it is those whose case is weak who make the most clamour." I'll tell you what. Let’s make an apology bargain deal. I'll cool off for a while, just to think about what I should done differently, and you can take care of the causes I made in the Harold Finch article, that way I don't have to suffer consequences for not editing more articles. Think about it, once you have read it. Thanks.

Sincerely,

Batman194 (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing some of the grammar; I couldn't follow this at first. Anyway, I'm going to give the article a major rewrite as time permits, and completely remove the injuries section. The person on the wikia who wrote it is all bent out of shape you used it, but frankly, it's pure original research, and unless he/she is a doctor, it's unlikely they can make that precise a diagnosis from a single x-ray.  Worse, it's pretty badly written into the bargain.  Do me a favor and resist the urge to make any changes until I tell you the rewrite is done.  I may just pull the whole article over to my sandbox and work on it there.  --Drmargi (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Hello D. Going through the next week and a half's TV schedule I found that The Bletchley Circle starts airing next Sunday. Here it is going to show right after Masterpiece but I know that your PBS station may have a different schedule so I thought I'd give you a heads up so you can find it on your local listings. Cheers and have a good week. MarnetteD | Talk 02:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention. If you haven't already done so you might want to put this page on your watchlist Reference desk/Entertainment. From time to time interesting questions show up there and we even get to use WP:OR to find the answers :-) MarnetteD | Talk 02:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh! We were talking about it earlier this evening!  I thought Mr. Selfridge had a couple weeks yet to go.  Wowzers!  Thanks for the heads up! --Drmargi (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oops I wasn't clear in my post. Yes there are several Selfridge eps left. TBC isn't airing as part of Masterpiece which is why you will have to search your PBS listing to see when they are going to show it. But an even bigger woozers is that I missed the fact that there are three new episodes of Foyle's War airing in the UK at the moment. I found out about it when I ordered my Endeavor DVDs tonight. The FW set is a little pricey so I am going to have to budget for it. Good stuff to view all spring long and yea to getting to see Honeysuckle Weeks again! MarnetteD | Talk 03:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So I see now. DVR is all set to go! I knew about Foyle, and Endeavour starting, happy days.  We've got a BIG summer coming! --Drmargi (talk) 05:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Touch
Touch has been cancelled, so the text should be "was" no "is". I've seen you reverted my changes. May I ask why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.0.148 (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Because the Wikipedia manual of style requires we use present tense. The show still exists, but as a cancelled show rather than as a show in production.  Look at the article for any other cancelled show and you'll see the same thing.  --Drmargi (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Amy's Baking Company for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amy's Baking Company is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Amy's Baking Company until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

About the Covert Affairs theme song
Can you point me to the Wiki policy about the group name at the time of recording part? Thanks, I'd like to learn more about this in order to avoid blunders like this. Raykyogrou0 ( Talk ) 06:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure I'd call it a blunder. Sometimes we learn these things by doing them the wrong way (heaven knows, I did!)  I'd have to do a bit of homework to find the general policy.  You learn a lot of this stuff by experience.  The general rule is that we describe people, characters, phenomena, etc. as of the time events described transpire.  In this case, the name of the band that recorded the song used in Covert Affairs was Power, so that's what we list; what they do later has nothing to do with the song.  I'll consult my muses on these things and see if I can pinpoint the policy; it's probably in the MOS.  --Drmargi (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Endeavour
Have you seen last Sundays ep yet? I want to talk about it but it would be a terrible violation of "Spoilers" (said in Alex K's most sultry voice) to write anything until you get to see it. MarnetteD | Talk 18:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Marketing coincidence?
I am in the middle of watching and enjoying the 2004 version of Gaskell's North and South. Then today I got an amazon ad for the 1975 version (which I didn't know about) with Patrick Stewart. If you scroll down here you will see how similar the cover art for the DVDs is. Now is that laziness by the marketers or is there only so many ways you can capture the essence of a 19th Century drama? :-) MarnetteD | Talk 19:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: List of Leverage episodes
Why did you revert my edit? My edit simply made it apparent how this episode matched up with its companion episode "The Boys' Night Out Job": in each a character from a first season episode serves as the catalyst for what happens. (At the end of the companion episode both characters meet up & it is strongly hinted that they become romantically involved.) My added material is clear to anyone who sees the episode, & helps to explain the episodes to anyone who needs to reference the episode. While a minimal treatment of episodes should be a goal for all articles on tv shows, too much will cripple an article. -- llywrch (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I stand semi-corrected. I though you'd only done the change for Girls' Night and overlooked Boys' Night.  Sorry 'bout that!  I self-reverted, then tweaked so the two are parallel.  Tara did enough episodes that a note regarding her isn't needed (ditto Kari Matchett when she appears), and I've matched the note about Peggy to the note about Hurley.  --Drmargi (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It all works out the same. And I couldn't remember Peggy's name. Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You deserve this

 * This award also comes with a free gallon of Troll-be-GoneRegisteredTM.svg. Simply let our shipping department know what scent you would prefer and we will get it on its way to you. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 15:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL! Thank you so much!  Let's see. I think I'll go with lemon-fresh Troll-be-Gone.  You can never miss with a classic!  You are the best.  --Drmargi (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well rats you had to put up with a second round of the nonsense. I have included a second bottle of eucalyptus scent to go with your lemon. MarnetteD | Talk 06:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I nearly got in touch to see if you had some Extra Strength TBG. Eucalyptus should more than meet any future needs.  Bless! --Drmargi (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Considering the part of the world that the IPs located to (I'm sure you knew that was why I chose the second gallons scent heehee) I wondered if Roman is the same person that trolled my talk page during the nonsensical "citation needed" at The Taming of the Shrew article earlier this year. I miss The Newsroom already but at least we have one more Foyle's War tonight! MarnetteD | Talk 19:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's very unlikely Roman is your IP troll. He tends to stick to copyvios on articles related to Malaysia and the baloney over the various Ramsay articles. --Drmargi (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I wanted to use this recent experience as an example of what I am describing here but I didn't because a) I had not asked you and b) you may disagree with what I have posted there. My apologies if this causes offense and I hope you have an enjoyable Sunday. MarnetteD | Talk 06:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please, go ahead if it's helpful. You and I came down on opposite sides of the Brangifer discussion recently, but the IP sock problem is massive, no question.  If Roman's latest fit of petulance can do anything toward solving the issue at hand, at least some good comes of it.  Happily, friends and responsive admins jumped into the fray quickly.  (That and I get a life supply of TBG.)  --Drmargi (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Elementary
You don't own the page, you do not decide whether or not these changes aren't allowed. I did reply on the talk, which you didn't reply to. You call me the dictator, when in fact you're the one who needs taking down a peg. Rusted AutoParts 16:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your previous blocks for edit warring and WP:NPA have had no effect yet again. As I just noted on the talk page, you know perfectly well that controversial edits are proposed on the talk page and discussed there, not forced into the article.  You can call me all the names you wish (although I will consult an admin the next time you do), but that doesn't alter how WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS work.  So knock off the attempts to force the edit into the article, discuss it on the talk page, gain consensus and the put it back.  --Drmargi (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the warring, but damnit I'm trying to give a fair compromise. I'm wanting to leave it on the main page so people can actually see the edit, make a decision and we go from there. It could take weeks for people to find the conversation and I prefer to have a quick consensus. The issue again is that three people agree with me, yet you're still throwing up barriers. I've replied on the talk, hopefully we can have a more fruitful discussion without all this animosity. Rusted AutoParts 16:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary is rather rude considering I did outline why on the talk page. Rusted AutoParts 16:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The established procedure is to lay out a controversial edit on the talk page, discuss and find a reasonable approach. It's actually a workable idea with some tweaking.  Just be patient, and work within the established procedures, and we'll get there.  --Drmargi (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'm gonna step away from the issue until a consensus is reached. Can you at least submit a reply on the talk what you think of it so I don't think you're just making iron fisted decisions and actually engaging my idea? Rusted AutoParts 17:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your choice. I've already responded on the talk page. --Drmargi (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of License Agreement
Hello. You know the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License that has been attached to the Harold Finch (Person of Interest) article that I created. I have finally learned my lesson. I've been beginning to understand over the course of six months knowing what it is like not to plagiarize other people's work; therefore, I am hereby deciding to remove it unless both you and I agreed. Maybe it'll be like good behavior or something. What do you say? Do we have an agreement? Batman194 (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Listen. I know that you are probably busy at your work, but please think about it and respond as soon as possible. Batman194 (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As always, respond to my talk page if you reached your decision. Batman194 (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a friendly reminder that if you are thinking about your decision for too long, it makes me very impatient. Giving you that as a heads-up. Batman194 (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)