User talk:Drmargi/Archive 8

Recent "Timeless" Reversions
, you reverted my change with the edit summary, "Fine as is." When you revert my edits, as you've done twice on that article today, reverting two different edits by me to restore the same earlier text, it makes me feel like you are deliberately working to prevent text authored by me from being included in the article. I can't find any policies or guidelines regarding reversions (other than the "bright line" of WP:3RR, which doesn't apply here), but there are essays that recommend against reversion as you've employed it. Revert only when necessary identifies the following as "bad reasons to revert:" Your edit summary of "Fine as is" suggests that the first bullet applies. Some of your comments about my contributions, taken with the edit history showing multiple editors providing multiple options for this passage, also invoke the second bullet. In addition, these reversions, taken with your complaints about my initiation of discussions on the Talk page while you decline to engage on the substantive points of the discussions, could also be construed as a status quo stonewalling tactic even if done in good faith. I'm asking you to consider not reverting my edits (which is not a request that you not edit content I have previously edited), and to participate in substantive discussions on the Talk page. Specifically, I invite you to respond to my concerns in this section that your preferred language is not specific enough, and that several other options (including the one you reverted, and two others that have never been published in the article) provide greater clarity. --DavidK93 (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not revert an edit because it is unnecessary – because it does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation.
 * Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing.

Soccer vs Football at 2028 Summer Olympics
Please join the discussion on the article's Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!
 Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Mea Culpa
Having calmed down and slept on it, I've come to the conclusion that I do owe you an apology for my behaviour yesterday. When I said what I said on the other user's Talk page it was only really an ill-judged throw-away comment that wasn't meant to be read by anyone other than said user, but of course I realise that user Talk pages are public spaces and you were ever likely to discover it if you had the inspiration to root around out of pure curiosity, as I often do myself. Said user had the common sense and dignity to not respond to me, so all credit to them for that. I can be a bit hot-headed sometimes and I think in the heat of the moment I got carried away. I hope you can accept my sincere apology. I have nothing against you, your state, your country, your views, your gender (!) in fact I may as well tell you that I am myself female (my user name is just a cover) so the mysoginist reference was quite ironic in that sense. Not a lot of people know that about me but I'm not really bothered one way or the other, so if you were to pass on that information it would serve me jolly well right and I would take the consequences! Rodney is the name of my Siamese cat and Baggins is of course a reference to Frodo and Bilbo of Tolkien fame (my other cat is called Bilbo). You see I'm just a middle-class English cat lover who likes editing Wikipedia and occasionally gets a bit hot under the collar. So that's me in a nutshell.

As for the subject that was under discussion, i.e. whether to use the word "soccer" or "football" for the 2028 Summer Olympics page: I don't actually have any strong opinions on the matter at the moment, but I do think that in a few years' time it is likely to become an issue for discussion again as the LA Olympics get closer – they seem so far away at the moment but time has a habit of flying. In some parts of the world, certainly in Britain and other parts of Europe, the word "soccer" is not immediately recognisable and we would have to think for a second or two to make the connection with "football" or to give it its correct title, "association football", which is the only type of footy that we actually call "football". Even though the word "soccer" was initially created (in Britain!) as an abbreviated version of "association football" it has slipped into the annals of history over here and is never used. Our "rugby football" is just called "rugby" and your gridiron football we call "American football". At the moment the 2028 Olympics page only uses the word "soccer" – do you have a strong objection to any mention at all of the word "football" at this point for the benefit of a large proportion of our readers? Maybe the first mention of soccer could be qualified with a parenthetical mention of our version, e.g. "soccer (association football)". Would that be an acceptable compromise? I would be happy to repeat this suggestion on the relevant Talk page if you think that might be a way forward.

Anyway, I guess it's early in the morning over where you are (assuming you are home) so you will perhaps read this when you start the new day. I hope it brightens your morning, I'm sorry again for criticising you, and I hope you have a nice day. Kindest regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * All water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned; I don't bear grudges, and you're clearly a very nice person. I do appreciate the apology though.  It gets tiresome how often some British  editors, especially one group of men in particular, assume the only possible reason anyone would not prefer British English is some anti-British sentiment and/or American appropriation of something that is clearly British (see the talk page for Battlestar Galactica for a great example.)  Several of them are real bullies (I imagine you know at least a few of who I mean), and it just gets old.  Funnily enough, your phrasing came across to me, anyway, as assuming that because I was a woman, I had some girly reason for seeing things as too English.  That's probably spill-over from some of their garbage, and for that, I apologize (with a z) in return.  So, let's put it behind us and be pals, shall we?


 * The soccer v. football issue is largely one of timing. Right now, we're talking about what's going on in LA as we prepare for the Olympics, including for venues that will host what we call soccer.  The documents submitted to the IOC may say football because that's what the IOC wanted, but around here, everyone is talking Olympic soccer.  Mayor Garcetti has never referred to it as football in his regular tweets and updates on the bid process.  It's simply too confusing, especially with the new arrival of a second NFL team here in LA.  After the 2026 Winter Olympics, as content really builds, we can take it up and decide what to do.  What really needs to happen is to standardize usage across all the Olympic articles; this is far from the only one where there are terminology variations.


 * BTW, you asked in an edit summary whether the LA Olympic "cauldron" was in situ. It is, just as the day it was lighted in 1932.  But, we don't call it a cauldron.  It's the Olympic Torch, and always has been.  The use of cauldron is a fairly recent change in terminology that seems to have come about with the change of design and the media's rhetoric.  I remember the 1984 Olympic Torch relay coming by the end of our street the evening before the opening ceremonies, on its way to Rafer Johnson, who climbed the stairs up the peristyle end of the Coliseum, and lit the Olympic Torch.  In those days, the term torch relay referred to taking the flame to the torch to be lighted, not the relay torches themselves.  And it's a "bucket list" life experience to see an Olympic Torch when it's lighted, especially one as historic as ours; we drove down one evening just to visit the Olympic village to see the Torch and all the activity surrounding the Coliseum.  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  17:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello again. I know this isn't supposed to be a social network so I'll be as brief as it's possible for me to be! – I can understand your excitement over LA2028, there's a real buzz about the place when the Olympics are coming to town isn't there? London 2012 was amazing, lots of people thought it would be a disaster and Britain didn't have what it takes to host a modern Olympics, but it was two weeks of awesomeness and I actually cried when it was all over! – My real name is Terri, pleased to meet you... Is your name Margaret? I think calling myself Rodney was maybe a subconscious thing to gain more respect on Wikipedia (I know I betrayed my sex by doing it though). Perhaps one day I should re-register with a female name and note the difference in attitudes!? – I think wiki editing is basically a world-wide experiment in handling social interactions. A couple of slight spats that I've had on here have led to friendships in the end (you being a case in point). – I'm currently trying to improve the English in the Santa Fe article but it's a bit of a quagmire. I don't know if you have any suggestions to help me? – I originally got into editing the Olympics pages via Elise Christie's article and just because I happened to start editing at exactly the same time that Team GB flew over to Pyeonyang – Vandalism on Wikipedia really makes my blood boil, I just do not see the point. There are some very stupid people in this world. I think you shouldn't be able to edit unless you set up a user account first. Casual IP users should be banned! I downloaded STiki to seek out more of the stuff but am finding it a bit frustrating TBH. – I've actually only been doing this for less than 3 months (I'm such a baby editor!) but I've become a wiki edit addict and I'm sadly neglecting other hobbies and committments, checking my watchlist at the crack of dawn and working on it late into the night... Have a nice day x Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Designated
I used to be Njorent. I have since changed my account name and password since my brother hijacked my previous account. Now that more reasonable heads are in charge, I felt that we should have a little talk.

If you're up to it and when you're free. I don't know what time zone you are in, but I am EST and have an event at 3:00. It lasts an hour and I'll be on the train after that, so I won't have access to wifi until – rough estimate here – after 6:00. So if you're free around, say, 7:00, I'd like to talk. Let me know as soon as you get this. --Bicam3ralMind (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Again. So, change of plans. Catching a later train. Can talk now if you want. --Bicam3ralMind (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm still waiting. --Bicam3ralMind (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Your signature
Reviving an archived discussion, would you please try again and let me know the results?

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * : -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉

to
 * : -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉

—Anomalocaris (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I tried, but am getting an error message regarding syntax. Would you check the mark-up again to be sure it works?  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  23:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I went to Preferences and pasted the signature in, and it accepted it. There is a 255-character limit on signatures, and my proposed signature is 199 characters, so the length should not be a problem, but among almost 500 users I've notified, there was one (1) user who had a lower character limit. So, here's what to do. Paste your signature into the Signature field in Preferences. Then copy from there and see if it got the whole thing. If it didn't, you probably have a smaller character limit, and we'll take it from there. Also, just this once, I'm using "your" signature to sign this message, to show that it works for me, and then I'll set my signature back to my own. —-- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  04:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, set my signature back to normal. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Would you please try again and let me know the results? —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Pederasty
please explain to me why your are reverting my edit. "young boy" directly conflicts with the cited text, in bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antifatalism (talk • contribs) 01:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Very simple: you were edit warring.  Once you're reverted, you don't hop off to the talk page of the editor who reverts you, trout them (which is basically mocking them), and then revert back because AFTER ALL, YOU ARE RIGHT!  You open a discussion in the proper place: the article talk page.  Your edits may be perfectly reasonable, but you have to get other editors to agree.  What you did was just keep trying to force your edit in, and that doesn't work. I even said in my edit summary that you should discuss, and what did you do?  Revert again.  This is a collaborative website, and we work together.  Heaven knows we all get attached to our particular edits, but in the end, we buy into the notion that we have to collaborate.  If you don't do that, you're in for an unpleasant, and short, time here.  So why not start that discussion on the article talk page?  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  06:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Wayward Pines
Hey Doc, awaiting your response at Talk:Wayward Pines. Cheers. --  Alex TW 14:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I was looking for more accurate sources and forgot this.  Still looking... -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  03:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it then be restored to the status quo while we wait? I'm not seeing how the source from February is now acceptable, and there's no rush to update the article without any acceptable sources. --  Alex TW 09:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Still waiting, Doc... If there's no new source, then it needs to be restored. --  Alex TW 22:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk: Nadiya Hussain
Her programmes and books are not specific to baking, they are cooking in general. Whilst yes she won a baking show, on the BBC roaster and on publications she referred to as a chef. https://www.bbc.com/food/chefs/nadiya https://stepfeed.com/a-muslim-chef-got-trolled-but-her-response-is-hilarious-4107 https://www.hellomagazine.com/film/2017070740456/nadiya-hussain-cooking-show-bbc-trailer/

Lordb (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
--  Alex TW 16:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think Drmargi will want to talk to you foul domineering misogynist pig-headed ****. 86.130.230.73 (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoever you are, how dare you speak to Alex in that way, and presume to speak on my behalf? Pathetic.  Worse, how dare you reduce my concerns to such vile language?  What a coward.  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  23:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The Americans (2013 TV series) revert
Hi, you recently reverted an edit I made to The Americans (2013 TV series) article, where I added a cast table. You said in the comment that "These only go in the cast/characters article", but in this case, there is no cast/characters article. Also, is there a specific policy that prohibits these tables from being in the TV shows main article? Right now, articles for popular shows like Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, 24, The Shield, Sons of Anarchy, Roseanne, and Married... with Children, to name a few, have similar tables in its main article. Thief12 (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * One you are reverted, the discussion belong on the show’s talk page. Please discuss there. What’s more, once you are reverted, the article stays at the stable version until consensus is reached. -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  20:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, discussion was transferred here. Thief12 (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Better Call Saul (season 4)
Here's your source. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My talk page isn't where it goes. Write it up properly and you don't have a problem.  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  02:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I will, and watch your tongue in future. The Optimistic One (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I get it. You have a doctorate, doesn't mean you have to treat others who haven't condescendingly. The Optimistic One (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Boo-hoo. I was perfectly civil.  Stop playing manners police and get a grip on routine practices around here.  For someone who claims to know what he’s doing as often and as loudly as you do, you still make a lot of awfully basic errors.  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  12:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I know, i'm so bad at editing Wikipedia. That's the reason why three seasons of BCS, and soon-to-be four got published. Don't worry, you tried your best to get them deleted. I'll give you an A for effort. Oh and btw, threatening to block people is very uncivil. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? If you're going to make accusations, at least be sure they're accurate.  (Eyeroll...)  This discussion is closed. Go cry on Alex's shoulder.  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  15:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi!
I surveil you! —  Wylie pedia  @ 06:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Creepy boy. How are you?  Long time, no chat.  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  06:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Ooo, "Creepypedia", I like it! I'm well, and yourself? —  Wylie pedia  @ 07:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, you know. My detractors keep piling up, but I'm hanging in there.  Nice thing about summer is it's "catch up on Netflix/Amazon/Hulu time."  I see you about a fair bit; good to see you're keeping busy. -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  08:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Over here in the South, it's Netflix and chill. Too hot for mid-June. And my screen isn't as red with the blood of my detractors, but I don't do much TV editing these days, unless it's to guide the noobs. My time is usually now spent on bios, especially for women. Just remember that some of us still love ya! —  Wylie pedia  @ 08:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Glad to know you're in my corner, and thanks for taking the time to say so. I just replied to you on the Zahn McClarnon discussion.  Let's scratch our heads and figure out a suitable way to include it in the article.  I've got fingers and toes crossed that he bags an Emmy nomination for it; he's a real fave.  Did you ever watch Longmire?  I can't recall.  If not, get thee to Netflix.  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  08:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yep, watched Longmire (not final season), Fargo, and first season of Westworld. And shamey shamey for not recalling the Longmire edits. —  Wylie pedia  @ 09:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Television
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Television. -- CapnZapp (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

2028 Summer Olympics
Please see this example. Eventually an article with the whole list will be created. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss on the talk page. But the operative word is eventually.  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  16:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Edits marked minor
Thank you for your edits at Bosch (TV series). However, please do not mark edits like this as minor. Per WP:MINOR only superficial edits (typographical corrections, etc.) are to be marked minor. The criteria is that no editor would be expected to regard the edit as disputable, which I am sure we agree is not the case here. Other than that, keep up the good work! CapnZapp (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And the edit, which moved a misplaced cast member, is well within the guidelines for minor. -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  07:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hopefully there's just been a misunderstanding here. Maybe you were thinking of another edit? The edit I am talking about was massive: per the diff you added a three-line characterization to the Julia Brasher character, moved multiple characters from one status to another (so many so, in fact, it is hard to get an overview if none were added or lost), changed "mistress to" into "lover of", "cops" into "the police"... It is not a minor edit.
 * Also note: the edit must be considered on its own; perhaps you were making a series of edits that you believe are minor taken together? If so, please don't use the minor checkbox for such edits. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The Great British Bake Off (series 9)
Please note that there is a discussion open on the talk page, if you keep removing valid edits without giving a valid reason or discussing it first, the previous warning on ANI is still valid. Hzh (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Elementary characters
We seem to be caught on the tines of BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.


 * 1) I note that there are already several discussions about where characters should go (Kitty, Morland) and there doesn't appear to be a consensus on this single show's prioritization, much less a wikipedia-wide convention amongst different television shows.
 * 2) "we go by billing" - Who is we?
 * 3) I respect that actors are very focused on their billing, so where the producers place their characters in the Main/Supporting/Recurring/etc hierarchy will matter to them. From an encyclopedic perspective, however, that can be (and often is) completely irrelevant.
 * 4) You did, actually, throw out a lot of information that I added, though, and I would appreciate it if you put that back

I propose that we change the "Cast and Characters" heading to "Characters" and change the subcategories to "Central" and "Ephemeral", which are accurate, neutral adjectives that are NOT terms of art. This moves the focus from the actor titles (subjective and subject to contract negotiations that have little bearing on the show) to the character (which is objective and strictly factual)

What do you think?

Riventree (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Take Two (TV series)
Hi Drmargi, you need to be careful of reverting the same edits too many times in a 24 period, per WP:3RR, as you're at 4 reverts already. This isn't a warning, and I'm not going to report you for edit warring, as the IPs are IP-hopping, which gives them an unfair advantage in such edits. If they keep it up, I'll request semi-protection for the article. When an admin reviews the edits, they might notice the amount of reverts you made, but hopefully not. Thanks, and take care. - BilCat (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

 * Many thanks, MD! And a lovely bit of inspiration chosen! -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  18:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome DM. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Explanation w/ regards to "The Crown"
Merry Christmas. I hope you and your family are well. I feel as if I owed an explanation for my edit to "Wolferton Splash". It's not that I was editing it excessively. It's just that there were one or two things I wanted to either delete or correct. For example, George learned about his diagnosis after the surgery to remove his left lung and Philip did become a British citizen in order to marry Elizabeth. Something to think about. --Bicam3ralMind (talk) 05:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The Crown
I noticed that you never replied. Can you show me where I created the articles? I don't seem to recall. Cheers. -- / Alex /21  02:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Waiting. Cheers. ATW. -- / Alex /21  01:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation
Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation - link update
The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Aleen f 1 13:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Aleen f 1 06:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Killing Eve
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I would underline this: repeated reversion is simply WP:TE. Fact on WP is determined according to the sources, as you will know. MapReader (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Chernobyl
Hey talk:Drmargi I am relatively new to wiki editing, I saw you edited my Chernobyl paragraph. Do you think I should move it to a different section or leave it out? I think it's an interesting point about the unspoken heroes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satoshibundaberg (talk • contribs) 16:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd move it. It's interesting, but doesn't fit the section you put it in.  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  17:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Good Omens (miniseries), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Good_Omens_%28miniseries%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Good_Omens_%28miniseries%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Lantern
Hi Drmargi. Re your prompt and unexplained revert here, the closing shot of that whole series is a long shot of the flames in the interior of Chuck's house? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Martin. I'm not sure what you're asking me.  Is there a word missing from your question?  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  14:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The text says: "Chuck's EHS symptoms re-emerge, he destroys his home's interior, and then intentionally knocks over a gas lantern, setting a fatal fire." I removed the word "fatal" with the edit summary "remove plot spoiler (which is in any case left unresolved)". You reverted me, with no explanation. How does the viewer know that the fire was fatal until the next series? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Now you're making sense. You're right; we don't know the fire is fatal for certain until the beginning of the next season, but the scene also plays so as to make it clear that Chuck's intention is to kill himself.  So the word can be justified based on the context of the complete scene.  I tend to revert edits based on "remove spoiler" rationales; the episode aired over a year ago in the country of origin, so it's far from a spoiler (a spoiler being advance knowledge of episode content.)  That was really what I reacted to.  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  14:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What a relief. Sorry if my edit summary was misleading. I had thought the reason to avoid a "plot spoiler" here was to not give the game away for any reader who had not seen the whole series, quite regardless of how long ago it was originally broadcast. Yes, Chuck's intention does seem to be to kill himself. That doesn't really imply that he succeeds, does it? Some viewers might be left with an element of doubt. Would you like me to remove that word again, but with a more accurate edit summary? I still don't see why a synopsis for the final episode of Series 3 should reveal a plot detail from Series 4. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought about what you said before I responded. First off, I'm weary of the tyranny of the spoiler. When Mark Sheppard did Doctor Who, he commented on the episodes via Twitter after they were broadcast in the UK (we get them the same day, about ten hours later).  People, of course, went apeshit about it.  His response was (appropriately, I thought) unapologetic, suggesting people exercise some "personal responsibility."  That galvanized my thinking that, once an episode runs in its country of origin, it's buyer beware on social media, discussion boards and websites.  Lantern ran June 19, 2017 in the U.S. and it's absurd to edit the summary for spoilers, leaving aside the WP:SPOILER policy.  As for his succeeding, the episode itself is not definitive, but Vince Gilligan did interviews within hours that confirmed the outcome.  If I remember correctly, there was some discussion on the talk page on the time, because there was an in-and-out problem for some days after the episode ran.  That's good enough for me.  I'd leave it as is, with fatal in the summary.  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  19:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, forget about "spoilers". Let's pretend I never used that silly and wildly inappropriate word in my very hasty edit summary. Let's just imagine the series finishes there, at the end of Season 3. "Fatal" is just wrong. We never see the outcome. I can open a thread at the Talk page, or even open a RfC, if you're really keen to battle it out? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, gawd, let's not battle. This isn't a hill either of us wants to die on. Give me a little time to review the talk page, and see what might have already been discussed. That's the simplest, least adversarial next step. -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  23:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't a housefire either of us wants to get burned in. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The main article for the episode says this: "His kicks cause a gas lantern to fall and start a fire, but he makes no attempt to leave." Which is pretty much correct, although it could say ".. but there is no sign of Chuck attempting to leave." By the way, I've also got a slight problem with ".. but Gus is suspicious." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll save you the bother of "reviewing the talk page". There's nothing. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Has two weeks now been enough time for you? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

What's Another Year?
Well it's been a year, flew by for me! How're things with you? The Optimistic One (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I let this get away from me; it's that time of the year when I have a lot of work at home, and am busy as crazy! But I'm hanging in there, and ready for BCS. Hope things are going well with you!! -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  17:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Tà brón mór orm! I had assumed that you forgot all about me. I didn't know you were a fan of BCS; That's interesting. How am I feeling? Well... S'all good, man! I'll be busy going into autumn as I'm moving to another city. Did the year fly for you? The Optimistic One (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Rizzoli & Isles
Greetings. – periods instead of commas based on which source? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Standing consensus; this has been the stable version for years, and the IMDB is not a reliable source. It’s user-submitted and not checked for accuracy. -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  14:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was just wondering if it was based on a DVD menu, insert card, etc. I consider those the definitive source of an episode title, whatever the status of IMDb may be. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe it originally came from TNT. I’m trying to remember, but there may have been some confusion with a book title, and TNT was the final word. Surprisingly, I was still able to find the TNT episode page and it definitely had periods. -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  17:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Bosch
Please present an edit summary. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Review the policy for counting episodes/seasons. Ouch has broadcast 50 episodes over five seasons. -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  03:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Was that so difficult? Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Save the sarcasm. The edit didn’t require a edit summary, and the error was yours. -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  03:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Great British Bake Off (series 3), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lime ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/The_Great_British_Bake_Off_%28series_3%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/The_Great_British_Bake_Off_%28series_3%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Chernobyl
Friendly Reminder: An edit was recently made to the Historical Accuracy section of Chernobyl_(miniseries). Given your interest in the article, and this section in particular, we invite you to review the edit and join the discussion. Your input is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.1.17 (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The Great British Bake Off (Series 10)
We recently opened a discussion for the Episode 1: Cake section of The Great British Bake Off (Series 10). Given your interest in the article, and this section in particular, we invite you to review your edits and join the discussion. Your input is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.1.17 (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I recommend ignoring comments from this IP "collective." They're just trolling you at this point, and can/will be blocked if "they" continue. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, as I keep reminding myself. He/she has just come off a block for similar nonsense at Chernobyl (TV series), and has started a similar thread there, which I’m ignoring. Now this baloney. I removed the post on the GBBO article, which he/she reverted and will edit war, having no command of even the most basic editorial practices. Glad to hear another block is in the offing if this persists. -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  18:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Good evening Ohnoitsjamie and DrMargi. We are surprised and disappointed to find this conversation here. Your comments (and use of quotation marks) related to our gender identity and pronoun choice are particularly disparaging and unwarranted. This is the same error of judgment made by [redacted] at Chernobyl (TV series). Please discuss the content and not the editor, and carry these conversations to the appropriate article talk pages. We remind you all to please remain civil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.1.17 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked again. Feel free to tidy up your talk page, Drmargi. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Mille grazie! I’m brooming the place, and reverting the GBO talk page edit. -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  21:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Lantern
Hi there. Has two months now been enough time for you? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Invitation
You are invited to this section of MOS:FILM about the issues with the format of 2019 in film. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Chernobyl
Ok when I added Tragedy to the genre section I made sure to include an article that was using the word Tragedy in reference to a genre context. The article in no way referred the event of Chernobyl as a tragedy. Did you even read the article? I was told to follow a strict guideline that if I were to find something that called a TV show or film a tragedy if it uses the word in a genre context. Well... At least that was what I was led to believe as the only guideline I had to follow so I did so. Despite all the other things thrown my way. I've just come to realise Wikipedia editors in terms of genres are very adverse to even the idea of tragedy in a modern context, it's something they want to die. Wikipedia editors not a single one has given me any leeway to work with this other than the excuse "Tragedy isn't a genre." And not even giving references reads just dismissing them. It probably has something to do with the very thought of a genre's focus being suffering and a tone of sorrow. Most humans in life try to do everything to avoid that very concept of suffering despite it being just another part of life, a part of the human condition. Suffering is something that helps us grow and it teaches us not to repeat such actions or else we're doomed to cause others suffering and that's what tragedy is suppose to teach us, to be more ethical. But humans rather disregard or push suffering and their own ethics away and let it fester until it spirals out of control and it hurts others. I have no idea why I'm writing it this on yours it won't prove my case to you about Chernobyl. It's just I've just realised an Aha moment about humans. No wonder we have such problems as a species.

IceBrotherhood Talk 11:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing.

@DrMargi - please stop reverting our edits. You seem to be a lone wolf editor who has commandeered the article under the guise of maintaining "status quo". As you are well aware, we opened a discussion on the relevant talk page more than two months ago. In that time, no other editor has responded to the discussion or to the edits we made. Your reverts clearly constitute disruptive editing and serve no constructive purpose. We will soon undo your reverts and invite you to discuss the edits on the talk page. At all times, please remain civil and debate the content not the editor.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Chernobyl (TV series), you may be blocked from editing.

NB: Wikipedia policy requires that we place this notice here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.1.17 (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers
And you, too, my friend. Thank you so much. I'm going to research this bevvie. I'll need one after tomorrow! -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  03:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The Aeronauts
Consensus can not be maintained on Amelia's last name. As a result of the talk page discussion, we require the note amongst other elements to end the long standing edit war. Please read the talk page and discuss the situation thoroughly before editing this page. Cardei012597 (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
Of course it's friendly! You are unfailingly patient and reasonable, and always friendly. Never worry about that. Happiest New Year to you, too! -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  21:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

References in TV articles
It's been a few days, so I want to make sure you know we're waiting for your input at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Reverting based on edit summary
Hi - I noted in this diff. you reverted the edit purely based on the edit summaries. Yes, those edit summaries were very poor and obnoxious, but the edits themselves were constructive so imo, they should've stayed. You can use the uw-wrongsummary template in situations like this. Ed6767 (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

DRN Header Reversion Comment
First off, don't attack me ever again by saying I am too inexperienced, as you do not know me. Secondly, these changes were discussed on the talk page of the DRN and not on the header talk page. I am reverting back to the changes. Please do not revert back again. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 05:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Penny Dreadful: City of Angels
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Penny Dreadful: City of Angels. — Young Forever (talk)   18:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The Great British Bake Off (series 1): Episode 6: Tea Party (Final)
Please consider keeping the NA column for series 1 final technical challenge. There are good reasons to keep the full column as NA.

+ One is to make it clear that the data is not just simply forgotten or skipped, but intentionally NA.

+ It is also nice to be consistent with all of the episodes across the other existing 9 series, which each have 4 columns of data per episode, even if that column is NA here for this one particular episode.

+ It also makes it easier to write scripts for scraping the table data programmatically, and this is a very nice and friendly dataset for beginners to learn this skill.

This is actually how I found that this single table had been edited- I spent several hours this week trying to debug a script I needed for a project that pulls the data from these Wikipedia tables.

Consider whether this edit merely costs you some annoyance or real time. It cost real time for me already debugging which of the 94 total episodes of the series had an inconsistent number of columns, and will cost me several more hours to develop a workaround if you continue to insist on this change. If it is merely annoying to you, please consider leaving this edit in place.

Apstats (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Chris Cuomo
Hello! Rather than engage in an edit war, I was wondering if you had any recommendations as to how I should word that paragraph I want to add to the Cuomo article. Below is my suggestion. The first two sentences are based on the Atlantic piece, and the latter is a quote from the transcript of his show. Thanks.

"During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, Cuomo was criticized for interviewing his own brother, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, on his CNN program. The younger Cuomo was accused of prioritizing ratings over journalistic ethics. On June 24, he responded to these criticisms: 'Of course I'm not objective.'" MetaTracker (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Here's the problems: first, your principle source, Mediaite, is an unreliable source.  It tends to take other source material and synethesize it by putting its own spin on what's being said.  One of the reasons I'm slow responding to you, and I apologize, is that I wanted to read around a bit on the topic.  Your original thesis was that Chris Cuomo was being widely criticized for doing the periodic interviews with his brother (there are roughly 6-8; I'm pretty sure I've seen all of them and most were done while Chris was in quarantine.) The problem is the only criticism I could find was another Mediaite article citing the Atlantic article, which doesn't criticize the Cuomos.  Like most of the articles on the subject, the Atlantic article discusses the wisdom of Chris covering Andrew, notes that Chris doesn't always do so, and then talks a little about the pluses and minuses of the interviews.  That's a far cry from the level of criticism Mediaite suggests has been leveled at Chris.  I've gone looking for other articles on the subject and most are the same: it's not a good idea long term, the situation was exceptional, and the interviews rather funny during a tough time.


 * Second, how notable is this whole fuss? Not terribly.  It's relevant right now, but will soon be forgotten.  The same applies to the little fracas with the guy on the bicycle who made it his business to get on Chris's face for supposedly breaking his quarantine.  Except he didn't: he was on his personal property (the family keeps a home in the Hamptons) and by then, the whole family had had COVID.  As it transpired, Mr. Bicycle is notorious for making others' business his own and needed to butt out.  Again hardly notable.


 * If you want to take another whack at a version that might be notable, propose it on the talk page rather than constantly trying to force it into the article. You'll just be reverted, and that can get pretty frustrating.  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  09:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

GBBO - Series 11 - Bread
Hi, I've left a comment at Talk:The_Great_British_Bake_Off_(series_11) in relation to your recent reversion.86.6.12.251 (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you mind engaging with the point I've raised please? I've seen you revert the disputed section tag I raised, and I'm not too sure how to request other editors to review, to obtain consensus. Any support or advice as a newbie would be appreciated, as I'm clearly not following the process you expect, and I have attempted to read the policy pages in this area, thanks 86.6.12.251 (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Relax. Editors will contibute as and when they can.  Remember not all of us are on British time or your schedule.  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  01:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The Great British Bake Off (series 4)
Please don't revert citing spurious reason. The statement as it is is untrue and needs rewriting. If you want to revert, please give a valid reason based on policies and guidelines, not something made up. I expect that you take this to discussion given all the previous warnings you had about reverts. Hzh (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy 2021!

 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Explanation as to what a stable version is
Hi Drmargi,

I saw your recent edit on subject Padma Lakshmi's page. I would like to know what a "stable version" of an edit is, and moreover where the reference/details is within Wikipedia rules/etiquette for this. I am genuinely asking as I am unaware. My understanding was that we maintain the default Wikipedia guidelines unless and until we have adequate reason to deviate per rules (ex: the stipulated exception criteria in MOS:ethnicity).

Thanks, Apoorva Iyer (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I see the following: "The stable version is the most recent revision of an article that was not affected by an active content dispute or edit war." listed on Wikipedia:Stable version but am unsure how we determine whether the version prior to the disputed edit or the version after the disputed edit was made is the "Stable version". In the case of the subject Padma Lakshmi's page, the dispute is the addition of the phrase "Indian" to the lead and occurred after the addition of this to the lead per my understanding. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I think I may understand. Thank you for your patience. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Padma Lakshmi
Hey, it sounds like you have a few disagreements on the page for Padma Lakshmi. I’ve started a talk page section on the subject’s page to discuss this. If you have any issues, it would be good for us to talk them through there. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Broadcasting
Hi Dr. Margi, I agree with you entirely, but as I have been reverted on several occasions on this grammatical point to "broadcast" in the past, I had given up making an issue of it. Glad to have your input on Talk:Series six ... (Season US). Keep safe! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Padma Lakshmi lead and Nationality
Hi there, I saw your recent reverts on subject Padma Lakshmi. I'd like to inquire as to how you established that the term "Indian" with regards to nationality (as well as lead) is part of the "stable version" of the article and why your policy regarding the stable version appears very different currently compared to what it was earlier when the same debate was occurring. However, more importantly, I'd like to point out that at this point you have almost violated 3:RR. Hence, I must inform you that I am bringing this to the attention of the Edit Warring noticeboard. I believe with regards to the rules, if you were to revert once more, 3:RR would be violated. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * In light of some editor advice I have received, I think it maybe more appropriate for us to consider a Request for Comment as opposed to edit warring noticeboard. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Here Comes the Groom.
Per your request, a comment has been posted at the talk page.--77.125.203.207 (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I responded. I will also be removing the book from other Capra film articles until there is an established reason for it to be in them.  Any attempt to restore them will result in action that may lead to you being blocked from editing.  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  19:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Replied therein.--77.125.203.207 (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Why was 2028 made the exception?
Why didn't you remove the heads of state or their representative from the 2022 Winter, 2024 Summer, 2026 Winter & 2032 Summer Olympics articles? Why only the 2028 Summer Olympics article? GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, you may want to look at List of people who have opened the Olympic Games article. Which includes the future games. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't follow the others, just LA 2028. Fundamental policy on WP is we do no post what we can't verify. In this case, there's no way to verify who will open LA 2028 yet given the presumptive president won't be elected until November 2024, so a note in the infobox about a presumptive participant is inappropriate. This was all discussed back when LA was still bidding.  A comment about the president traditionally opening the Olympics in US cities could be added to narrative, but that's it.  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  20:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd agree if it had read Joe Biden, but it didn't. It just said "President of the United States (expected)". If it's been done at the aforementioned list article. Why not the Olympic Games articles themselves. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Editing Burn Notice episode summaries
I'm a fan of the show who is simply seeking to better and/or more briefly summarize the episodes -- indeed, several years ago they were at least 50% longer, and I had a significant role in cutting them down to what they are now -- and, as I compare the episode summaries for the whole series of Burn Notice to those of other pages for TV shows, I notice that they tend to be shorter and/or much less detailed than those for Burn Notice, which is the purpose of a summary. My question, then, is why you seem so fixated on preserving these pages as is when they could be improved to be more in line with what a summary is supposed to be?DuckDevil90 (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But what you're doing is trying to edit out what you consider to be spoilers. Once you were reverted the first time, you should have stated a discussion on the talk page to gain concensus for the shortened summaries.  They've been in place for some time, and that indicates consensus is that they are acceptable as is.  I don't see any improvement in the shortened summaries.  So I reverted them back. Your constant restoring them is becoming disruptive and may result in your being blocked.  Please respect policy and gain consensus to shorten the summaries, bearing in mind that we do not edit for spoilers.  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  18:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Ramsay
The source is from 2014 and says he announced it in 2014, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Also the show was made until 2014 so the 2011 date doesn't make sense Atlantic306 (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Series and book
Josie Lawrence played Agness Nutter. The entire series is based on the existence of a book written by Agnes Nutter. Neil Gaiman announced how pleased he was that she had reprises the role from her previous performance in the radio adaptation. MrLepus (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your point being? -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  16:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

How to list major characters that are uncast
In TV show Unforgotten, series 4, Rob Fogerty is a major character – is deceased; is repeatedly talked about; has a story-line; his photograph repeatedly appears on-screen; is the fifth suspect who could be realistically revealed as the murderer. As a wiki user after watching first episode, when I searched the wiki page (before any of my edits) for “Fogerty”, zero; not in cast; not a character anywhere; the page was not helpful. Stephen Quinn is another significant uncast character who, in contrast, is completely invisible on-screen.

So how do I change a wiki page which does have a list of “Cast” members but does not have a list for “noteworthy characters”?

I saw this [below] so I thought “Cast and characters” with my patched edit would be good enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Character_listing

Cast list: In a section labeled "Cast" or "Cast and characters", indicate the name of the cast member and their noteworthy role(s), followed by a brief description of the character.

Characters list: In a section labeled "Characters" or "List of characters", indicate noteworthy characters, including the name of their portrayer, followed by a brief description of the character.

As background, I’m a brand new wikipedia contributor stumbling & looking for guidance from those in the know.

Also, if this is not the “right” page to ask for advice/help, let me know the preferred protocol. You are experienced and are the person who changed my edits, so I did this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phc-NUL (talk • contribs) 13:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Undo
You added an information that wasn't included in the article with a reference that was already in the article. Undoing an edit is not related to adding new information that was not previously included. You should add it by simply editing the article. There's a very high possibility, as in the case on Bridgerton, that you will remove recently added reliable source(s). ภץאคгöร 22:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Manners
Are you trolling or what? SerVasi (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hardly. The burden is on you to gain consensus once you're reverted, not to keep reverting.  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  20:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah ofcourse, build a consensus but i won't respond. Amazing trolljob. You are yet to provide any counter-argument. You can go on and on about the burden being on me but you are the one going agains the wiki status quo. The mistake being present in the article before the correction doesn't hold any weight SerVasi (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Take this to the talk page. Insulting me won't help your case.  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  21:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Consider a self-revert at The Crown (TV series)
Hello Drmargi. You were reported at WP:AN3, and you appear to have violated 3RR. Please consider undoing your last edit on the article to avoid a block. Per this comment. Thanks you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Don Lemon
"(Lemon) put his hand down the front of his own shorts, and vigorously rubbed his genitalia, removed his hand and shoved his index and middle fingers into (Hice's) mustache and under (Hice's) nose," according to the lawsuit. This has not be discussed previously it is not on the talk page. This sure sounds like alleged sexual assault to me. That is worth mentioning. Viktory02 talk 18:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Don Lemon
"(Lemon) put his hand down the front of his own shorts, and vigorously rubbed his genitalia, removed his hand and shoved his index and middle fingers into (Hice's) mustache and under (Hice's) nose," according to the lawsuit. This has not be discussed previously it is not on the talk page. This sure sounds like alleged sexual assault to me. That is worth mentioning. Viktory02 talk 18:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I restored this since there was no explanation.

Don Lemon
"(Lemon) put his hand down the front of his own shorts, and vigorously rubbed his genitalia, removed his hand and shoved his index and middle fingers into (Hice's) mustache and under (Hice's) nose," according to the lawsuit. This has not be discussed previously it is not on the talk page. This sure sounds like alleged sexual assault to me. That is worth mentioning. Viktory02 talk 18:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I restored this since there was no explanation.

Don Lemon
"(Lemon) put his hand down the front of his own shorts, and vigorously rubbed his genitalia, removed his hand and shoved his index and middle fingers into (Hice's) mustache and under (Hice's) nose," according to the lawsuit. This has not be discussed previously it is not on the talk page. This sure sounds like alleged sexual assault to me. That is worth mentioning. Viktory02 talk 18:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I restored this since there was no explanation.

Could you explain your reversion?
Hello ! Could you explain the reasoning of this revert right here? First of all, per WP:STATUSQUO reversion is mostly appropriate for disruptive edits or vandalism edits, which my edit is clearly not. Your reasoning of "We have the picture." in my opinion is not the reason of reverting or removing the content. The objective of Wikipedia is to provide content that are reliable, and my edits are well sourced. As for the "excessive details" I agreed that some of the details can be removed, but please engage in discussion instead of wholesale reverting.

In my opinion, what Cuomo had done: attempting to reach out to find about new accusers and forwarding documents should be mentioned. It is not excessive detailed, as "using journalism resources" is too broad. As for the decision to remove him from CNN, in my opinion it should be made clear that CNN made the decision only after they made internal reviews. I will try to reduce the details and change the article, hopefully we can discuss from there. Thank you and have a great day! SunDawn talk  23:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


 Wylie pedia  @ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.  Wylie pedia  @ 00:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Bridgerton Cast
Hello, just want to say that there should be a separate section to the eponymous Bridgerton family members. For clarity's sake, even at least in the cast section. It just doesn't make sense that they are scattered and buried in the cast list as the show revolves around them. There should be structure. Maxen Embry (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss on the article talk page. -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  19:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Editing
I dont know who you are or if you are a moderator/admin but I am still quite unsure why you keep changing the image back to a screenshot of the title screen compared to the official branding of the show. Universalxeno (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Your edit has been reverted by multiple editors, and there is no need to change the image. Just because you want to change it doesn’t mean others will agree, or that the change is needed.  In this case, it is not.  Please discuss further on the show’s talk page. -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  10:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Universalxeno, your editing on the Chicago shows are becoming disruptive and the screenshots of the title screen are very much official logos and are more stylish to the infoboxes. There is no need to change the image. Many editors don't agree with your change of image. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Let's move this discussion to the article talk page, where it belongs. -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  16:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
Your recent editing history at 2028 Summer Olympics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * At least provide a link to this moronic RFC that imposes a gross error, because i cant find the damned thing. -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  13:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Here you go . Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There's no resolution there as yet.  Please do not attempt to enforce what you assume will be the outcome to mid-label Los Angeles.  -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  13:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)