User talk:Drmargi/Archive 6

A courtesy
Drmargi, I'm doing this as a courtesy and meant to be as friendly as possible, as usually we've been in good standing with each other, but I find your behavior on Mr. Robot (TV series) quite unacceptable and edging on WP:OWN. You've deleted reliably sourced content multiple times (and including a revert when a separate editor readded it) based on your preference and nothing else. I am not making controversial edits, these are not edits being reverted by anyone else but yourself, and telling me I need consensus to readd content that is reliably sourced and was in the article for several months before you decided to delete it, is frankly, ridiculous. You use tactics such as "status quo" to revert to your preferred version, even though this is not new content being added, but content that was in the article for several months; and stalling tactics such as "discussion is progress, do not revert", when you show no signs of compromise, and again, somehow that means your preferred version is what goes in the article. I plan on bringing this to WP:ANI, which is something I don't want to do (who wants that?), unless you undo your latest revert. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Anything you say to me applies to you as well, given your persistence in forcing an edit despite the "discussion" on the talk page I foolishly believed was operating under the terms of WP:BRD, and your WP:IDHT approach to the show's writer, creator and executive producer's clear and unambiguous statement regarding the show's one and only genre. I gather you're younger, and come from a generation born to the internet, and consequently, accept anything published online.  The single feature that makes a critic a critic is that they deal in opinion, not fact.  They can be wrong, and frequently are.  They can call Mr. Robot a comedy if they want, but it doesn't make it so.  The producer has been quite clear about that.  We went through this with Elementary, when critics erroneously (Get it? Root word error) claimed a character's first name was other than it was.  And they were wrong.  Their source can be reliable as hell, such as the LA Times, but a media critic can, and frequently is, wrong.  And that's the case here.  Like or not.  --Drmargi (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * But your assertion that they're "wrong" is your opinion. A show is allowed to be more than one genre, and Esmail calling it a techno thriller does not override anyone else being able to classify it as a separate genre. Psychological thriller is not replacing techo thriller, it's an addition. Unless he literally said, "No, it's not a psychological thriller", then sure I'd agree; but that's not the case. Template:Infobox television states, "Genres must be reliably sourced", which they are. Beyond multiple reliable sources, there's the USA Network page and the official Facebook page for the series which literally has "Genre: Psychological thriller". I don't get it, why are you so against this? Psychological thrillers deal with themes such as identity, reality, a character's mental/emotional state and use plot devices such as unreliable narrators and plot twists–all elements seen in Mr. Robot. But seriously, why do I have to keep defending it, it's sourced. You were also recently reverted by another user, clearly consensus isn't against it. Unless other editors were reverting me left and right, I'd back off, but that's not the case. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Robot/Fight Club
I see from the previous discussion that this isn't the first time you've made wholesale revisions to the article. All your objections were addressed in the Talk page. Please consult it and try to build a consensus of other editors before you make a wholesale edit again to the page. I completely understand your concerns, but the commentary on the connections between these two works in major media coverage is too prevalent to ignore. The article is better served by including this material, especially because the creator of the show is so eager to talk about it. It's no different than the article on O Brother Where Art Thou? discussing its roots in Homer's Odyssey, or the section on In Cold Blood that examines its veracity. This is a derivative work. The creator has explicitly said that he is "unapologetic" about that fact. It should be addressed within the article. The burden is on you to demonstrate why this material should not be there. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, if you wish to weigh in. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 02:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just counting up reverts to do the same. I'll go comment.  --Drmargi (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Latest Mr. Robot Undo

 * I'm stumped. If the creator of the show cannot be quoted on his influences, what can be included in the article? That quote perfectly sets up the passage in Critical Reception where these influences are mentioned. I'm mystified by your hasty reversions. Moreover, it creates this tautology wherein your reversion becomes the foundation of a warning against further reversions. By reverting to my own good faith edit, I simply initiate a feedback loop which results in some sort of threat of Wikipedia jail, but your original reversion was not done in good faith. My movement of that quote to a different section is a good faith effort to address your concerns and present the creator's own words in a completely neutral context. What is the problem with that? Trumpetrep (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Mr. Robot (TV series). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Having a meltdown
Hi! I've created individual season pages for CSI: Cyber (1, 2), but the episode page (here) is still showing episode descriptions despite the "only include" parenthesis being correct. I'm stumped, help a brother out? --Unframboise (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ooh, you're asking the wrong person. First of all, it's too soon for the seasonal articles, and second of all, I don't know how to do them because I loathe them.   can probably give you a hand; he's a whiz at these things.  --Drmargi (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've fixed that issue in CSI: Cyber (season 1), but there was a lot of other cleanup that needed to be done as well. You can just repeat that in the season 2 article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, buddy! --Drmargi (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys, it was driving me up the wall. Probably not my forte and I doubt I'll try it again in the future. I noticed the issues with the episode tables, in particular, also, but I was too lazy to fix them when I copied and pasted from the "List of" page. --Unframboise (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Robot (TV series)
Please do not revert blindly. If you choose not to discuss it, when it fact you ask for the discussion, then you have no right to revert. Two other people has contributed positively to the discussion, you have not. I have in fact taken most of the suggestions on board, including Mr Robot and Elliot being the same person (but worded differently). Given that you have reverted edits that are not disputed,you even reverted edits made by other people as compromise, furthermore refusing to discuss the issue when asked a few times, I would assume that you are not willing to contribute positively to the discussion and simply using revert as a weapon. This matter will be taken to WP:ANI if you insist on reverting a compromise edit without attempting to make positive contribution to the discussion and address the specific points made. Hzh (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're making up your own rules in order to justify forcing a change for which you do not have consensus. See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD.  Again, a lull in the discussion is not license for you to force the changes you want.  You are still using/omitting specific language discussed on the talk page by other editors.  Take it back to the talk page, and discuss further, and with ALL the editors.  Telling one you won't discuss with him is not acceptable; neither is telling an editor they have forfeited any sort of right based on your self-serving personal rules.  You've been reverted.  Back to the talk page, not discussion here or via edit summary. --Drmargi (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?
You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

CSI
Sorry about those incorrect edits I made on the CSI: Immortality page. Based on everything else I had read on the Wikipedia pages concerning Immortality, I was under the impression it was two episodes since the main CSI page lists 337 episodes including Immortality, otherwise it's only 335 when not including, with also the first table consisting of all seasons on the episodes lists has 2 episodes accounted for in Season 16 (Immortality). Babelcolour5 (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks
For the revert on my talk page DM. Exciting news in this mornings paper. Season four of Sherlock starts filming next spring AND the new special will air on PBS (I think) January 1. Great way to start the new year. I hope you are well and that you have a spooktacular week leading up to Halloween. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, no problem. The trouble with Wales's failed egalitarian approach to editing is it allows every infant and nimrod to come along, hide behind an IP and engage in all manner of childish behavior.  I'm glad to see Neil came along and cleaned up your edit history as well.  Have a fabulous Halloween, too!  --Drmargi (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

last_aired parameter for Infobox television on Agent X (TV series)
Hi! I am wondering why you did this edit. Per, the last_aired parameter is "present" if the show is ongoing (which this show is, since yesterday). –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Irony of ironies
Hello DM. I hope that you are well. Saw a bit of fun that I wanted to share. In this thread Administrators' noticeboard it is a wonderful irony that "Thor" may not be able to edit articles dealing with Heathenry. What a hoot. We are having the first real snow of the season here so that'll give me an excuse to watch a batch of classic Dr Who stories. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
In case you don't get my pings: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Already responded. It needs some links, but I'll have to add them later, when I have a bit more time.  He needs a good long block.  --Drmargi (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Castle episodes
I believe you still haven't addressed the other changes made by me that you reverted - the parenthetical commentary. Can we please discuss them? Davejohnsan (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll start with the two-parter issue: If certain episodes were advertise as two-parters, then why aren't the labels (Part 1), (Part 2), etc. in the titles? Like I wrote before, lots of dramas carry plots over several episodes; I don't see why that necessarily qualifies those episodes as multi-parters. Davejohnsan (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue of part numbers in titles was discussed at length and the current format is the result of a compromise dating back to early 2010. The episodes "Tick, Tick, Tick..."" and "Boom!" were advertised as part of a two-part storyline, but "{Part x)" was not part of the episode title, and so should not be included as part of the episode title. Despite this, some editors insisted on adding "(Part x)" to the episode title, resulting in edit wars. I started a discussion on the article's talk page, and raised it at WT:TV. The ultimate outcome was to leave it as the episode title in   with (Part x) summary text. My own preference is that the title should be displayed like this:


 * i.e.
 * Boom!
 * (Part 2)
 * which leaves the title quoted and (Part 2), which is not part of the title, outside the quotes. However, regardless of how it is done, the parts of the same story need to be identified as such. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Aussie's history of the identification of the two-part episodes is spot-on, and there's nothing to add there. Most of that sort of thing has been thoroughly discussed on the Castle episodes talk page.


 * There are two issues here: are the episodes two-parters (yes); it was a tradition for some years that Castle would do a big two-parter.  The descriptions of the episodes, the publicity for the episodes, etc.  were always geared around "the two parter" of the season, so there's no question.  Why not part of the title?  Because (Part 1) or (Part Two) or whatever variation wasn't part of the title, and when you add them, you alter both the title and its meaning.  And that brings me to Aussie's comment about his preferences.  Here's the problem with your preference:  not only were (Part 1) and (Part 2) not part of the title, if you frame a title as Boom! (Part 2), in American English, there must be a Boom! (Part 1) because the parenthetic in that position indicates an episode called Boom! has been divided into two parts. That's not the case here (versus episodes such as The Closer's Serving the King (Part 1) and (Part 2), which meet the conditions I cite, and include the part numbers in their titles.  (Their head writer goes to far as to play with phrasing of Part 1/2 when they're in a title.) So not only is (Part 2) not part of the title, but you have an apparent missing title and an associated grammar issue.


 * That it is supposedly common practice to add (Part 1) etc. to the title elsewhere leaves me unpersuaded. We know the lemming phenomenon abounds on en!W, especially with TV articles.  That doesn't make it right, semantically  or grammatically.  English grammar in TV articles (both British and American) runs from poor to atrocious far too often, and I doubt most editors (your good selves excluded) really think through what's going where in those table cells, even if they do know what is grammatically correct, which in most cases I doubt.  So boys, where does that leave us?  With the best alternative I can see, which also parallels how episode summaries tend to be written in television media and program guides:  (Part 1) a the beginning of the summary.  It's done that way in other shows (I introduced it to Leverage, and it was never questioned there; I've seen it in others as well.)  Take the parens off if they bug you, although I think they indicated information versus story.  But don't arbitrarily remove them because you don't like parenthetics, or to put them in the title, where they don't belong.  --Drmargi (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough -- I'm not trying to rock the boat here. Thanks to my lack of free time, I'll have to revisit part of this discussion another day but I appreciate the time you put into responding. Davejohnsan (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If you have the time
Hello DM I hope that you are well. If you remember the hassle we had with FrozenFan2 (who turned out to be a sock of Bigshowandkane64) there were certain "tells" that you noticed. If you have the time and inclination would you mind taking a look at this User talk:Bishonen and see if any of them are there. If you are too busy then please don't worry about it. I can't wait to see River and the Doctor together again - fortunately it is only two and a half weeks away. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The appropriate block has been handed out so you don't need to bother yourself with this. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw that just after I read your message. But I think I saw one tell.  I'd need to retread a couple things to be sure. --Drmargi (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation on a proposal
You are invited to the MOS/Film discussion here, regarding about release dates in year in film articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Tea (meal)
I see you have reverted my edit. If Tea (meal) appears as a section in the "Drug Culture" category (as it does), why should the category not appear on that page? Thank you. Hugo Baptiste (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Because tea is not part of the drug culture. Tea may be a euphemism for marijuana, but that doesn't make the meal tea part of the drug culture.  Your placement of the categories is incorrect.  --Drmargi (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


MarnetteD&#124;Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, 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.


 * Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Drmargi as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They're so funny. I love all the retro cards and images.  Thank you, MD!  --Drmargi (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Thank you, Alex! And the same to you!

This might be of interest
Happy Xmas Eve DM. I don't know if you've seen the saga that began here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film and continued here User:Rhododendrites/Chaney and User talk:Rhododendrites/Chaney. A number of editors put in more than a little time and effort in tracking things down and many of their findings are fascinating. Only a day and a half until the return of River Song. Ho Ho Ho Sweetie!! Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 12:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Holy moly! I just read the initial thread, but my gosh.  What a mess to clean up!  Does this guy have anything  to do with Scientology?  They keep threatening to disrupt WP.  --Drmargi (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your intervention, I had an inkling there was going to be an issue with this guy's edits. Have I seen the name on one of the drama boards? WCM email 18:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've come across him on a couple articles. I did weigh in on his last ANI, but the first-hand contact has been dreadful.  He's British, and very nationalistic, which flavors everything he writes.  You'll have an interesting time with him.  He doesn't understand the usual range of editorial policies, as you've already begun to see.  He really doesn't understand what contentious edits are, and that makes for most of the fun.  And wait until you see what he can do with WP:SYNTH. Then, if you revert him, he takes an adversarial stance and sticks to it. If you want a better sense of his style, take a look at the article on UK firearms trends he's been warring over recently.  Prepare yourself.  --Drmargi (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

And now for 2016
A belated thank you, Gareth. This is a glorious image! Best wishes for the holidays and the new year! --Drmargi (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: "Reverts"
Hello, Drmargi. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for saying what needed to be said to me, but in a very respectful, sophisticated manner. I've taken the time to review both articles you referenced, especially personal attacks. While what I said was not directed at any specific person, it was in direct conflict with a portion of what constitutes a personal attack. For that, I'd like to apologize. The reason I verbally came out swinging, so to speak, is because of misdirected frustration. There is an individual with whom I had a conflict regarding the episode page of another show, a show about which I'm almost as passionate as I am about Person of Interest, and that very same person if one of those who reverted my edit (mind you, for good reason I now know), however, when this took place on another TV show's page, he was extremely passive aggressive and hostile in his immediate discrediting of my editing abilities. I had just started using Wikipedia at the time and was not very proficient in computational cyber protocol, or even writing code (that is not the case anymore) Please do not misinterpret this, as I know I am the one in the wrong, and I am not trying to engage in a dialogue in which I somehow look like the victim. I just feel as though I needed to explain myself, and who better with whom to do so than the one of 4 users on Wikipedia who have shown me respect and made me feel welcome.

I am well aware that the world will not end if the POI Season 5 info is not complete (lol). If I thought the world were to end, I wouldn't be on my computer. But passive aggression aside, I sincerely am a person who loves Person of Interest and Criminal Minds, as they have helped me deal with deep-seeded problems in my own life, as far-fetched as that may sound, so I make it my business to do the best I can to help keep fellow fans as informed as possible, and Wikipedia is an amazing vessel through which to do so. In my mind, I saw how many little error notices Wikipedia has put on the POI episode lists and wondered why my mistake was IMMEDIATELY centered out, but whoever made the mistakes of adding too long of an episode summary, over 40 times, was not reprimanded. However, it is foolish to assume they weren't. I reacted much in disproportion to the situation, and I do not intend to do so again, as I want to respect Wikipedia's rules. I just felt that a specific user had discredited my information for the sole purpose of undermining me. That did, in fact, happen on a page for Criminal Minds and I was the aggrieved party in that case. My information was solid, came straight from a co-executive producer, and yet this person continued reverting it, so I sought help and reported him. However, to think that same scenario applies to this POI conflict... I now see how slanted and nonsensical that is.

In conclusion, I will not add information unless it can be traced back to an original source, credible and solid. (like my addition of Fred Toye as director and Andy Callahan as co-writer of POI episode 5-10 - the 100th) I do apologize if I've offended you with my two aggressive edit summaries, as they were the result of misdirected anger and frustration. Thank you for informing me of where I went wrong, and remaining respectful and composed. I love to learn, and I'm glad I've learned more specific information about how to avoid reference/edit info-conflicts. I also want you to know that I'm well aware that Wikipedia is not a fan site. While I intend to show you the utmost respect, that was uncalled for. I can read - very well, in fact. Je peux parler en Français aussi, et je peux le comprendre. I know that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that is why I try to be as thorough as possible, and if this sentence comes off as condescending, that is because you offended me as well. I did not insult you, or anyone specifically; what I did was make a childish, anger-driven, juvenile comparison of whoever reverted my edits to royalty, or self-appointed leaders. It was a mistake to do so, and since I'm not very good at conflict resolution - the fact that this is my best attempt to mend fences proves that - I'm going to stop now because I'm starting to argue with my own intentions. Please forgive my outburst, and be assured that it won't happen again. I will continue to help build a stronger Season 5 episode table with solid references, but I fully intend to adhere to the rules and keep my opinions of other editors to myself.

Thank you for helping me to stay informed, so that I can continue to inform fellow TV Crime Drama fans. Happy editing and thank you for your kindness and composure in this matter.

B. Edward Bef3481(2) Bef3481(2) (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 7)
I do not need consensus for my edits, since I'm making the table like it has been for a number of years. You and AlexTheWhovian are going against the status quo, and therefore you must achieve consensus.Theoosmond (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't accuse me of editing as an IP. You have NO evidence to support this.Theoosmond (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And it wasn't me.Theoosmond (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Of course it was.  See WP:DUCK.  --Drmargi (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The IP editor reverted because he didn't like the table. I reverted because no consensus has been achieved. We are not the same person.Theoosmond (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We're done. --Drmargi (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What's that supposed to mean.Theoosmond (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Your December Comment at Mr Robot
I haven't looked at the article on Downton Abbey in months so that I don't find out how the series end, thus exercising simple personal responsibility. Very hard to resist but I agree wholeheartedly. Buster Seven   Talk  23:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, it is! No question.  I got the phrase "personal responsibility" from Mark Sheppard, who was responding to Twitter readers who thought he shouldn't be tweeting about his experience on Doctor Who after the episodes aired.  It really fits, doesn't it?  This whole silly notion of episode content being a spoiler forever has to go.  Thank you for the kind words!!  --Drmargi (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

January, 2016 - POI Clarification
I'm sorry, Drmargi, but I must tell you that you were incorrect in your edit summary justification. I am correct, and I've made no assumptions. When someone is listed as "co-writer" of an episode, it is therefore implied that there is more than one writer - more than one person writing the episode. Even the language used in the "table replacement sentences" makes that fact crystal clear. I'll leave it alone until there is well-substantiated proof which would allow me to edit more. All you've managed to do is re-dismantle the table. I'm fine with that if you feel that's what is best, since this page seems to be under your control.

All is well! I just wanted you to know that you are wrong about Andy Callahan being the only writer of episode 100. The other is Melissa Scrivner Love, but since there is no solid proof listing her as a co-writer, (yet) I'll only state for sure to you that more than one person wrote the 10th episode of Season 5. You'll find out soon enough. Normally I wouldn't go to these lengths, but I wanted to make it clear that I would not make such an edit (to add "& TBA") to a page's episode table under merely an assumption. Good day, Drmargi. Bef3481(2) (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have only your word for that, and it doesn't rise to an encyclopedic standard. You did assume, if only billing order.  This isn't a fan site, and a vague reference in a tweet is far from "crystal clear."  Moreover, I didn't dismantle anything; if you check the edit history carefully, you'll find another editor modified the table.  --Drmargi (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The Hoaxening - the saga continues
Hi DM. I thought you would get a kick (starter) out of this new development User talk:Rhododendrites/Chaney. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi again. This unrelated thread is likely to tickle your funny bone - User talk:Acroterion. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do so love the Wikipedia follies. Classic!! --Drmargi (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I need clarification
Is that directed to me? The indentation freaked me out. Callmemirela 🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  22:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No. It's the shortcomings of the indentation system.  That's for Unframboise.  --Drmargi (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you! Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  22:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * He's removed it all and is calling us Nazis now. I've redacted the reference, and reminded him that he's got to play by the rules, but I'm not optimistic.  He's got a long history of this sort of thing.  (See DRN regarding the NCIS/JAG franchise to get a flavor.) --Drmargi (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That message was there for quite some time from what I remember. The timeline of the message is rather irrelevant, but the message is frankly inappropriate, uncivil and wrong. It's not the first time I've been called a Nazi by a user, but it still bothers me. It's clear that Unframboise is a case of WP:IDHT as I have reverted them twice already, stating that a) WP:BURDEN was disregarded, b) they failed to comply with WP:OR when they stated that they "read" it on Futon Critic and c) assumptions were made when there was no clear evidence that William had left the show because it was never mentioned on the show nor was there a source stating such. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  22:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It has, but in the moment, is directed at us, and I refuse to tolerate the reference. I've dealt with this before.  He had been dialing it down and was doing good editing, but recent it seems to be ratcheting up again, which is worrying.  --Drmargi (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It was previously directed at me, as was an uncivil statement at WT:TV and a gif he linked to on his talk page in this post. Last year an admin actually blocked him for "acting like a jerk" (the admin's words, not mine). Since he's obviously not getting it, it may be necessary to head to ANI, with the aim of getting an admin to give him a push in the right direction. I've already warned him about this possibility, but he doesn't seem to care. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that explains a lot. I recall some earlier kerfuffle with you, but nothing specific.  The block came out of some nonsense I was part of; i remember that block summary well.  It's a shame; he turned a corner after that block and was doing good work for the most part.  But now he's back to the petulant ownership business.  At least he got the message and blanked his talk page this morning.  No loss there.  --Drmargi (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Dearest Drmargi
Good sir, I regret to inform you that you have been proven wrong. I know this may be hard for someone with your level of arrogance to accept, but you must try. Yesterday, after being repeatedly irritated by your complete and utter ignorance of well known facts, I created a twitter account with the handle @DrmargiSux. I tweeted one of Top Gear USA's hosts - Adam Ferrara - who, amazingly, replied to me and confirmed that season 5 of the show has not aired yet. Now, since you keep insisting that season 5 of the show has gone to air, and we've now established that the opposite is true, we can conclude that you are wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Sorry, that word just has a nice ring to it, don't you think? Since you are guilty of being an imbecile and repeatedly standing in the way of a necessary edit to the Top Gear USA wikipedia page we have two choices: 1. You must pen a short apology letter to all the users of wikipedia apologising for your arrogance and small-mindedness and beg for their forgiveness. If you do not receive the support of 10,000 wikipedia users in two days then you must leak your nudes to the internet. If these pictures are not downloaded at least 50,000 time in the following three days then you must delete your Drmargi account and commit seppuku. Or 2. You can stop being an d*ck and let me update the page so that it displays the correct information. The choice is yours...

Regards, Mr Right-all-the-time

P.S. The tweet in question can be seen here: https://twitter.com/adamferrara/status/695689104910999552 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvanterati (talk • contribs) 02:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Endeavour title debate
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.114.64.251.194 (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Abuse
After seeing all this abuse hurled at you, claiming you abused them (I believe you've done the right thing), I offer my sincerest condolences and also, since you have kept very calm over this, I congratulate you on this, and give you this barnstar.

Well, that was thoughtful. Thank you! After the pasting I've taken the last couple days, it was particularly welcome!! --Drmargi (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Drmargo
Is this you? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 00:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No. It's an infant who can't deal with conflict maturely.  I've left a message for Cyphoidbomb; he blocked the original editor.  Dig into my archive, and you'll see who it is with ease.  --Drmargi (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait isn't Drmargo married to Jerryo as well as living next door to Tomo and Barbarao? I removed a bit of trolling at the top of the page as well DM. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Something like that. I seem to be collecting detractors of late.  Tells me I'm doing something right.  --Drmargi (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Circular discussion
Hi Drmargi I was wondering if you could put some input into this discussion. The problem is the discussion has been going on for a long while (since 21 December 2015), but hardly anything has been agreed on, except the discussion is going in circles. The thing being is discussed that is causing the problem is that some editors believe that DVD boxsets of Doctor Who series, which include many 'Christmas specials' in them, can be used as reliable sources to determine if a Christmas special goes into a particular series, but other editors believe that boxsets can't be used as sources and many of these editors think the Christmas specials should be removed from series tables so the page in question looks like. Also, some editors believe if the page were to look like that, it would be a mess. A RFC has been put in, but hasn't seemed to attract any outside attention, so could you put some comment in, if you can, please? Theoosmond (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me try. It's a long read, so be patient.  I've been busy!! --Drmargi (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'm not hurrying you. Theoosmond (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not
Hi Drmargi How come you reverted my edit on Better Call Saul and saying this "Graphic" is not needed. Every other show pretty much has both. If it only needs to be one, why not this one, as it's better and shows all of the viewers for every episode. It's both easy and simple. It's perfect but for some reason you have a problem with it. It seems that you are just a fanboy who does not want people to see that her favorit show is declining and probably will get cancelled soon. I hope not, cause I like the show. But why are you hiding the facts for people that come to this page to see why that the show is flopping, and when it started to flop? AffeL (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2016

Sorry!
Hey Drmargi, I just spotted your email from about 2 weeks ago. I'm sorry I wasn't around to help--I just didn't see it until today. Please consider dropping me a YGM when you email, since I virtually never check that account. Hope things are better. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

POI Season 5
Hello, Drmargi. I can see how it would be easy to gang up on me since the other user has made me as easy target, but the references which I've just used are completely different than the tweets in question. They are no longer in the page, and I won't be using them for referencing at all because he was right; they were too vague. But these are not solicited; I was thanked for my support by the writer of episode 506, by the standards of WP:V and other rules, these references (entirely different than the controversial tweets) are impeccable and to delete them would be disruptive editing. I'd appreciate it if you could take the time to read both references. For episode 10, Andy Callahan (one of the two writers) explicitly says the title, and both writers in the tweet, (yes these new sources are tweets, too, but Wikipedia does not have a rule against that). Please take the time to read these new references. These people don't have to answer me if they don't want to. I don't plan on asking anyone else for help; I'll find the info myself from here on out, but don't let the fact that I'm an easy target affect the facts, and their distribution to all Wikipedia users. Thank you. Bef3481(2) (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither account is verified. There are no explicit names.  These are NOT reliable sources.  PERIOD.  We're not ganging up on you, or anything like that.  --Drmargi (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
For this. Proof that I shouldn't edit while half-asleep with one eye open. —  Wylie pedia  18:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wondered about that. It wasn't up to your usual standard.  Get some sleep!  --Drmargi (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 'S'all good now, lass! —  Wylie pedia  18:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good. Then it's green beer for you! --Drmargi (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

British-American series
I've just seen your comments about what a British-American productions on AlexTheWhovian's talk page, and I was wondering if there was any movement of correcting all the programs that say they are British series, rather that saying they're co-productions if they're co-productions, or will the nationialistic Brits just whinge away at this, going on that if these were the rules, there would be no British programs, making any changes useless? Theoosmond (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There's some. We've got to take it a little at a time.  PBS/Masterpiece has a sizable number to back-track.  --Drmargi (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I trust you understand why some Brits claim that co -productions are simply British productions, and not co-productions. Theoosmond (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. It's a certain amount of nationalism, but largely, it's because it's hard to see the American involvement.  But it remains that a fair few of the productions wouldn't get off the ground without involvement by the American networks, notably Downton Abbey, which actively solicited co-production support from WGBH.  PBS and A&E kept Poirot in production years after ITV would have cancelled it.  But in this day and age, British programming is popular in the U.S. (and the reverse), and co-productions are becoming increasingly commonplace.  Hell, the new Chris Evans version of Top Gear, and the last few seasons of Doctor Who are BBC America co-productions, but can you imagine how INSANE the fan boys would go if we tried that one on?  We've got to work up to it.  --Drmargi (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there is also an issue with these particular Brits (which I'm sure you've worked out does not include me) that they think that Americans produce to many programs and therefore say co-productions are 100% British, but I guess that's nationalism. And since when was Doctor Who produced partly by BBC America? I thought it was just the premiere to series 6 that was a co-production. I also think there would be issues if programs only became co-productions recently, but started off only being programs produced by one country. Theoosmond (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Your facts are deeply mistaken regarding Masterpiece and Downton Abbey
I would also like to make clear that 'Masterpiece' is not a production company and is a series of dramas produced by WGBH Boston. Downton Abbey was purely featured within the series for American viewers. I feel this is where some people get mistaken for the show being a joint American production. Please refer to the Masterpiece wikipedia page for proof.

If you would like to further dispute my claims then please feel free to using other sources other than your current one(s) which are obviously incorrect.

Regards,

Jack Answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Answers (talk • contribs) 17:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So you say. The wikipedia page is no proof of anything; we don't use Wikipedia to source edits.  Please confine this discussion to the article talk page, and provide sources for your contentions.  So far, I see none.  --Drmargi (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Longmire
Would citing Unogs be a valid source? It's a database of everything on Netflix in each country.-- occono (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I'm not familiar with it.  Could you send me a link?  --Drmargi (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * http://unogs.com/ -- occono (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Merging Timeless
I have noticed that you completely crushed my Time 2016 TV series. I don't mind, since there is an older article on the same subject, but I do mind that you have not imported all the references and all the hard work I had put to write onto this stub article and grow it to this point. Please reconsider importing some of my writings (Ive seen that you keep the original article in the sandbox) and especially my references. Cheers! --Greetings! (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't crushed anything. I'm in the process (operative word) of merging two articles. The original is intact in my sandbox, and the two narrative sections have to be edited together.  I chose to wait until I had more time to do so.  Jeez, try assuming a little good faith, and remember we edit as and when we can. --Drmargi (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, "crushed" may be a harsh term in this context. Anyhow, I hope that you will use my article, or at least some parts of it. Cheers! --Moviemanmk (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Huell Howser. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''Your edit summary said rvv. I read that as "revert vandalism". In fact, I think the IP was seeking to improve the article. I suggest you reserve "rvv" for clear cases of vandalism and simply say "not helpful" when you come across similar edits. Thanks for considering my suggestion.'' – S. Rich (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Before you decide to school another editor on AGF, you might check the edit history of the article you're referring to. The editor you think is trying to improve the article has a long history of disruptive editing on it.  Those edits have been reverted by multiple editors over a considerable span of time.  --Drmargi (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This edit has been made four times since February, apparently by the same editor each time, and reverted each time. After the third time you'd expect an editor would have enough common sense to wonder why their edits were being reverted and maybe ask a few questions, rather than simply restoring the same edits. Drmargi's first reversion was for "unexplained changes and the second was "Rv disruptive edit". Given that the editor still doesn't seem to have gotten the message after 3 months, I can understand the progression to "rvv" as by now the IP clearly doesn't seem to care. Had the IP have made the same edits over a period of a few days, he would likely have been blocked. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Both of you are right, and I apologize. The IPs are all from Phoenix using Cox Communications. With this in mind, I'll try to remember your suggestion checking the edit history. (As one other IP page was recently blocked, I've posted a warning on 24.251.29.163 's talk page.) Thanks.  – S. Rich (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * it's cool. This has gone on intermittently with a succession of IPs since HH died.  He's pruned some of the more absurd stuff, but persists in forcing edits with a summary or use of the talk page. Thanks for the warning.  --Drmargi (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hard Rock Cafe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Universal City. 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) 09:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

List of Top Gear episodes
Talk:List of Top Gear episodes could do with some input from another editor experienced with this article, and TV in general. If you have a few minutes, please drop in. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was thinks along those lines. I'll weigh in when I get to my desktop machine. --Drmargi (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll be so glad when the new series airs. I've just reverted this edit at Top Gear (2002 TV series). The edit added a bad url, but this appears to be the correct one. It's an image posted a year ago and from this, the editor somehow got the message that Top Gear was cancelled. Sigh.... -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Harold Finch (Person of Interest)
Dear Drmargi,

Thanks for fixing my small errors here and there. I appreciate it. I have a quick question though, if you don't mind. If I were to revert an edit and assume good faith, how do I do that so the edit summary would state that?

Thanks again! AjayTO (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Most editors will say, "revert good faith edit by (Name), (reason)". More or less.  It works pretty well. Good luck!! --Drmargi (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Is that done manually or is there a specific way to do it? AjayTO (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There may be some Windows-based automation available, but I'm a Mac user and type it out. My pal AussieLegend may drop by and he knows a lot more about that side of things.  --Drmargi (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay thanks a lot, Drmargi! I'm new to editing on Wikipedia but I like it so far. You seem to know a lot, thanks for helping a new fellow Wiki member out! :) AjayTO (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)
I would like to invite you to contribute to a discussion on whether or not "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" and "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" are two-parters. Over the course of 3 weeks and 2 discussions, few editors have contributed, so it would be a great help if you could take the time to contribute. Fan4Life (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Rizzles home stretch
Hiya! I don't know if you saw my lead trim at List of Rizzoli & Isles episodes, but if you didn't I mentioned it here in case you want to oppose/ support it. Also, feel free to edit view the latest episode summaries that I did. (Note: Strikethroughs are on purpose!) —  Wylie pedia  16:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did see it, and it was badly needed. Is someone fussing about it?  It seemed entirely in order to me.  I'll keep an eye on the talk page. --Drmargi (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No fussing, but ya never know if/when someone will, since it changed airdates as recently as from last season to this one. Should be quiet since the main page gives the past airtimes in the ratings table. No worries. —  Wylie pedia  01:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Cal State
You need to request a move for this and get a consensus. If you don't, and continue to move it, then I will have an admin protect it. You are going against a WikiProject's standards. Please discuss and see this note as a general warning for edit warring. Corkythe hornetfan  20:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion on the talk place. The university's name is wrong, full stop.  It has never been know by that name. It needs to be corrected.  --Drmargi (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, but until then, it needs to stay at tge [in]correct name. Corkythe hornetfan  20:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate information?
I was wondering as to which part of my edit was inaccurate on the Mr. Robot page. Please get back to me so that I can correct it. Mr.Elliot.Robot (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Mr.Elliot.Robot
 * There are three issues with your edit: a) we don't note languages into which the broadcast is dubbed; Mr. Robot is produced in English; b) Elliot does not have MPD; an individual with MPD has different personalities they assume as needed whereas Elliot has a delusion that his father is with him as a result of his social anxiety disorder -- that was clearly discussed in the show, and; c) only Elliot hears Evil Corp; he says in the pilot he trained himself to hear E Corp's name that way.


 * Once you are reverted, you don't simply revert back. Please discuss on the article talk page and gain consensus for your edit.  Until then, it stays at status quo, the version before you made your edit.  --Drmargi (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The Making of the Mob
Hi, Doc! I'm taking an unofficial survey as what to do about AMC's The Making of the Mob. I've already gotten Drovethrughosts's opinion, so I'm asking yours. TMOTB: Chicago starts tomorrow today. I don't expect a separate article for it to be created, as with TMOTB: NYC, but I think a main and episode list article is in store. I also think NYC should be left alone and the episode list to be formatted. Thoughts? (P.S. I'm not attached to any of these projects. Hence, my delay in a doing a main/episode page.) —  Wylie pedia  07:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to go with what Drovethru suggests. They could be described as a group of mini-series, which is accurate, then treated as seasons for organizational purposes.  So much of the content of the existing article is lists of names that could be pruned, then handled in narrative.  Or, you could treat NY as a season article.  I've never watched them, and to be honest, don't have any strong feelings about it.  --Drmargi (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've never liked putting so much work into an article, then seeing it redirected to another, so I may just leave NY and do both the main TMOTB and episode list page, since AMC considers it a "series". It's a combo anthology and docuseries – not exactly actual history but not fully fictional, á la The American West, which I follow more than the mob series. Both are great ideas, but not for student study guides. —  Wylie pedia  00:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the main article is started. If you look at the edit history, I was interrupted, even with a tag saying not to (sort of). I will create the Chicago article skeleton, but will not touch it afterwards, except to add episode press release info. This is only to have a streamlined episode list page, so that the second season listing isn't bloated there like NY's, without transclusion. Let Sue at it. *sigh* Thanks for the input! Now to 7-Eleven! —  Wylie pedia  03:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm good either way. To be honest, TV shows glorifying the mob aren't my cup of tea.  Good on you for getting it underway. (I looked at the history.  How exasperating!)  --Drmargi (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, in The Godfather fashion, I tried to stay out of it. Oh wait, you might not know that reference. I'm just surprised AMC renewed this, but I guess they're happy 2 million people initially tuned in. Honestly, I didn't know it existed, until it popped up on Futon. Eye of the mind makes a movie. Now, I'm just rambling. Have a good week! —  Wylie pedia  04:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (UPDATE: I've begun the episode list page, since Chicago has been created...as expected. Happy Caturday!) —  Wylie pedia  08:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So, I see... --Drmargi (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's talk...
... at Talk:Person of Interest (TV series), in case other editors want to weigh in. Thanks. Jmg38 (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Covert Affairs
Hi you reverted my edit on Covert Affairs. It was not any wrong information. Please see Draft:Ali Kazmi.-119.160.99.179 (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * He appeared in one episode in 2011. That's not recurring, so he should not be on the list of recurring cast, much less placed as more prominent than Oded Fehr's character.  You've also listed him as main cast in the infobox.  He was never main cast.  My revert was perfectly appropriate.  --Drmargi (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

For your perusal
Talk:List of Rizzoli & Isles episodes. —  Wylie pedia  02:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Mmm, parsimony. Great, now I'm hungry again, thanks. —  Wylie pedia  02:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Too hot to roast them tonight. Stick with carrots.  --Drmargi (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Having a cold snap here this week, only in upper 80s. —  Wylie pedia  03:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Envy. It was 97 here, after "cooling down" (snort!) from 104 or so the last couple days. Ugh. --Drmargi (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Knightfall (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Carter. 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) 10:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Then again... (re: email)
See Xena: Warrior Princess. —  Wylie pedia  07:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I shortened it up a bit and moved it to Premise, although that section needs a major rewrite. The two quotes are excessive, so they're both gone.  --Drmargi (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox Television Episode
Do you have any idea why on the infobox mentioned above, there is no space for starring actors, only for guest actors? TedEdwards (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Check with Aussie Legend. He's very involved in the creation of these infoboxes and Project Television, and should know.  My guess is that because it's for a TV episode, it's assumed the main cast is in the article itself or a linked article. --Drmargi (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Code black season 2
I have the cast lineup for season 2 directly from one of the actors they are in correct order I'm 120% sure this is the correct line up besides Bonnie Somerville and Raza Jaffery they where cut from series Mrucci0718 (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll upload the cast line up Mrucci0718 (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * So you say, but there's nothing other editors can see, and that's required. We have to be able to verify what you say, which is done via a reliable source.  Personal communication, however accurate you believe it might be, is never a reliable or verifiable source.  You're going to have to wait until the first episode runs, then add the new cast to the bottom of the cast list in the order they appear in the credits.  Persistently adding it now will just get you blocked, and you don't want that, I'm sure.  I know you mean well, but you've got to edit within the established policies.  --Drmargi (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
Your recent editing history at Shaunae_Miller shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ♥ Melody ♥ 12:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Aquarius
"Last Aired" means date of most recent episode to have been aired or broadcasted. It does not imply the 'last episode' ever. Do you see the difference? Unless a time-machine has been employed, the last aired episode was on July, 14th. 75.82.68.41 (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not in the season table, just in the infobox. --Drmargi (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Robot
Did you read the transcript from the interview with the writer? 75.82.68.41 (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean the one from Popular Science where he explicitly says Elliot is NOT schizophrenic? Yes, I did.  I'm just not sure you did.  --Drmargi (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * He also states that Elliot describes himself as one in the first episode. There's also the fact that he exhibits symptoms characteristic of schizophrenia.75.82.68.41 (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But Esmail says he ISN'T schizophrenic. End of story.  Your interpretation of his symptoms is WP:OR.  --Drmargi (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiLove


   has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Thanks for your assistance on Food Network Star Kids. (As you can see, it's clearly still under construction, but...)    18:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding Bubble tea to someone's talk page with a friendly message!


 * Thanks! I needed that!!  Keep up the good work, and I'll swat the nuisance flies.  --Drmargi (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks very much re: this... I was about to leave a comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television asking if I were crazy because I've seen a lot of future-dated "Last Aired" sections.

Joeyconnick (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC) 
 * Gosh! Thank you, and I'm a cat person!!  You're not crazy.  We get these IPs who have minimal grasp of policy, then dig their heels in.  Hang in there! --Drmargi (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Your Downton Abbey edits
If you look at the talk page, you will see most agree with simply calling it a British show. (N0n3up (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC))
 * Two comments does not constitute consensus. There has been long discussion about it, and reliable sources that verify it is a UK-USA co-production, as are Sherlock and a number of others.  --Drmargi (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up (no pun intended)
Thank you for rolling the ball forward on this; it's about time and we can definitely work out wording easily on the talk pages.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The Great British Bake Off
I'm curious, why is this not information about the series 7? It could be both about the show as a whole, and for that particular series. Hzh (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Aquarius
Please enlighten me on the season overview box policy. 75.82.68.41 (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Robot
I have a few hypothetical questions for you. If a writer creates a character and that character acts like a schizophrenic, is that character schizophrenic even though the writer didn't create the character with that intention? If the character was based on people with schizophrenia, shows symptoms of schizophrenia but wasn't labeled a schizophrenic, can that character be schizophrenic?. Can characters take on a life of their own independent from the writer's original intentions? Does the writer have the final word on their characters? 75.82.68.41 (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The writer is the final word. --Drmargi (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I should say Drmargi reverted edits that indicate Eliot had Dissociative Identity Disorder on Mr Robot here when the author said that Eliot suffered from Dissociative Identity Disorder. Hzh (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The Great British Bake Off (series 7)
It appears that you do not wish to discuss the matter when the discussion is opened. Since the edit clearly is related to this series as it refer the series itself, the edits is self-explanatory why the edit is relevant. You are the one who reverted an edit that is clearly related to the series, but you choose not to explain why you reverted it when requested. I have already said why your revert is wrong - that it was in the main article has no bearing on whether whether it should be on that series, you reasoning was wrong. Now you are reverting an edit claiming I should explain when it is self-explanatory - it is the presenters' last series on the show. I should say now that I have seen this behaviour from you, dragging things out and refusing to answer when requested. You saw fit to give a "reason" when you reverted, but choose not to in the discussion. Please give an appropriate reason in the talk page. Do not use revert as a weapon in lieu of discussion. Hzh (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note discussion is important if you want to revert edit per WP:BRD, so far you are only reverting without contributing anything substantive in the discussion, in fact nothing you said made sense. Please remember that you are the one who made the revert, so far you have given no reasonable explanation for the revert. Hzh (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is approaching the point where you are becoming disruptive. So far you haven't given a valid reason, and you should not revert a good faith edit simply because you don't like it per WP:BRD (and please note also the need to discuss the edit, giving reason, etc.). So far you are blithely ignoring the guidelines, trying to get your way by reverting. Hzh (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Got any eye bleach?
Crossfire (Castle). Oy vey! —  Wylie pedia  01:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fangirl alert! I'm about to give up the will to live, between it and the pointless split of the episode article.  Also, green table lovers have hit the Chicago Med article.  --Drmargi (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up Part II
I will look at those when I get back in a couple weeks; been a busy time with school, work, and now going offline basically during my vacation. Thank you!  Nate  • ( chatter ) 18:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Enjoy your vacay! Student days are wearing, no question.  How well I know... --Drmargi (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Sharing a story with links from my past
Hi DM. I can't remember if I've mentioned this before but, even if I have, this one has links to all the pertinent details. So in June of 1980 - after a few days of hiking in the French countryside - I take the night train(s) and ferry to London. That morning, while wandering around the west end seeing the sights, I spy the names Leonard Rossiter and Prunella Scales on a theatre marquee. At that point I don't care what the play is I know I am going to see it that night. I buy a ticket for a seat in the second row of the royal circle of the Theatre Royal Haymarket and get to see Make and Break. What those sitting close to this slightly ripe Yank in his bib overalls, blue and gold striped rugby shirt and Chuck Taylor high top tennis shoes thought I can't imagine. I only hope they enjoyed the play half as much as I did :-) Enjoy your week. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Psst
Take a look at your buddy CAWylie's recent talk page edits, including the removed ones. Hope you fare better with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5800:AD00:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in being part of your petty beef with Wylie. He's a long-established editor whose judgment I trust.  Given your grammar and tendency to take revisions personally, I'd suggest you find somewhere else to edit.  --Drmargi (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So he can be snarky at others but not the other way around or more in the vernacular what's good for the goose is not good for the gander. And you guys wonder why wikipedia can't keep editors around. SMH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5800:AD00:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Psst? Lol. —  Wylie pedia  19:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

List of Rizzoli & Isles episodes
Whattaya think, huh? —  Wylie pedia  12:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm no fan of these ratings tables, full stop, but this is an improvement in terms of space; I know it was a lot of work for you! I'd relabel it Viewership, though.  Why not just list seasonal ratings like most articles do and leave it at that?  (BTW, I'm going to go kill all the OZ and Canadian ratings from the NCIS articles.  How idiotic is that?)  --Drmargi (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's a work in progress. I'll wait till R&I last season's numbers come out then generalize it. Sounds like you need a leaf blower! —  Wylie pedia  04:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

To page-split or not to page-split...
Morning! Or evening...whenever. So I noticed Secrets and Lies has resumed. In May 2015, I created the redirect for its LoE page. It's now time to transfer over. However, if that is done, the lovely ratings table, that people feel the need to have, goes with it, taking half of the 40k main page. After the Philippine TV debacle, I am perfectly content leaving the S&L stuff alone. Thoughts? —  Wylie pedia  07:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slow reply. I'm good either way.  The main article is short, so leaving it won't be a big problem.  But as you say, the conventional wisdom would be to move it.  May start a discussion on the talk page?  How's that for a Solomon-like response?  --Drmargi (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Breadth of mind like the sand on the seashore. The second season ratings aren't that high, so its not returning for a third may not warrant a split. —  Wylie pedia  13:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

California
Hi Drmargi, hope your weekend is well. Re: this, my change wasn't a goof, the phrasing that was restored makes my head hurt. It's really confusing. If there's a way to clear it up, that would make me happy. :) I had to block the IP because he's going out of his way to format things problematically. I suspect some sort of cognitive challenge, but I'm stymied by not knowing how to communicate with him other than by writing in clear English. The sheer number of edits he makes is irritating, and if you step through them, he sometimes changes A to B then back to A then B then A then B. Very odd. This edit was pointless, in this edit he makes a number of weird changes, like introducing the status parameter, which hasn't been used in years... I'm rambling... Anyhow I'm going to treat future edits as problematic. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Mine was still vastly better than what 24 had, but it does need rephrasing, I must admit. I'll take a stab at it tomorrow.  Glad to see you were looking in on the various HH articles; I was going to drop you a note if the changes had persisted any longer. I don't know who that turkey is, but he doesn't know the first thing about California's Gold.  The IP is in Arizona, which might explain things.  I had the opportunity to meet HH a couple times, and hear him speak, and he always made such a point that CG and his other shows were so much more than travel shows, and that the people were always front and center.  The IP seems to be making it up as he goes along, thus the eight or so mentions in the infobox.  --Drmargi (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

designated survivor
Nope, you are wrong, as EntertainmentOne is the producing company of Conviction, not as you tell. EOne is the company backing the Mark Gordon Conpany since last year. You seem to have no idea from television distribution, while I'm working for it. You have no idea of L.A. scrrenngs and other important sales conventions. Please let it in. By the way: You know why Designated Survivor and Conviction are produced in Canada? Right. Because EOne produces them for America And: Other articles like Crininal Minds and Code Black, both boarded by CBS/Paramount in the US, but by ABC Studios in the rest of the world, have that section in their articles to, as distribution has clearly nothing to do with broadcasting, which is done by channels who bought the series by the distribution company. All in all: You and Mr. Faverefan just have no idea.--Robberey1705 (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * According to you. I don't watch Conviction, but Designated Survivor is filmed in Toronto by and for American company, and distributed by an American company.  Original broadcast is on American TV, and that's what goes in the infobox.  If you want to discuss and gain consensus for your edit, do so on the show talk page.  As it is  now, you are engaged in an edit war that may get you blocked if you persist.  BTW, telling other editors they don't know what they're talking about his hardly collaborative, and won't build the consensus you want.  --Drmargi (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't edit it back, but leave your fingers out of other articles, as you clearly don't know what you are talking about. International distribution is given in all english articles, as they got important for the companys in the last years, as they are sometimes not handeled by themselfs. Read the sources: The Mark Gordon Company is backed by EOne, even Mark Gordon is American. You can now try to change other articles like Code Black or Criminal Minds, which have that in for years. Guess, you won't do that, but wait and see...--Robberey1705 (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Robberey, may I suggest that you reread WP:Civility and stop being so hostile? This is an encyclopedia, not a petty war forum. If that's what you're here for, go elsewhere. Otherwise, stop it with this attitude. It's rather childish. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  19:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Twobells
Your opinion would be greatly appreciated at. I said I'd report them if they reverted again, and so they did. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. I was probably too verbose.  --Drmargi (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The more, the better. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 23:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)