User talk:Drmargi/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

TVLEAD updates

Here is the text I was referring to RE Sherlock: If the nationality is not singular or unclear (e.g., produced by both American and British productions companies, as with Sherlock), omit the information from the introductory sentence and cover the different national interests later in the lead section. This was determined per this discussion. I did ping you to that discussion if you had wanted to voice any opinions. This text is based off of WP:FILMLEAD, where a similar practice is used, of not naming nationalities right after the title of the film if there are multiple. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This is an end-around an edit war. I didn't agree to it (we weren't given much time to read and process what was there, much less comment), it's designed to address a single edit war, and Project TV does not have absolute say-so. When you're reverted, you discuss on the show's talk page. --Drmargi (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sherlock and The Crown are part of the TV project, so the articles should conform to the MOS. Regarding the discussion where this text was added, I did notify you here on November 4th, after The Crown discussion had been occurring for a bit, about the potential of this text, and my proposal was fully added on November 19th. I did a courtesy ping again a few days ago, so I felt I had given you enough time to voice opinions if you chose, and I'm sorry if you felt otherwise. And I've been trying to make the project aware of these discussion in various locations so no one feels blindsided by any changes. But for those who did participate, this text was what was agreed upon as implementing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, this formatting has worked well in the film project for years with no issues, so I don't see it as an end-around to edit wars, but a hope to prevent them in the first place, since users are less likely to edit over this info if they don't see it right in the first few words of the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

San Dimas, California

I hit the wrong button at San Dimas. Check the edit history and talk page for User talk:2605:E000:AC83:C700:10FE:F1C5:84A1:389C. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Phoenix disruptive user

Hi Drmargi, might I please trouble you to step through about a dozen or so of the IPv6 editor's edits here and let me know whether or not you think they might be the same person who was being an irritant at the California's Gold article? I don't recall them editing kids' stuff, but they're both from Phoenix and the pattern looks similar to me. Just curious if you're seeing the same behavioral stuff that I am. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey @Cyphoidbomb: I definitely think it's the same editor at both IP6 accounts, going back to December 12. The film is unusual, but it's also the holidays, where it might catch his attention, and there are other biographical articles on his contribution lists that are very consistent with his editing choices. I went all the way through the edits beginning with December 12, and the fiddly-fiddly editing pattern, then refusal to accept a policy-based revert are very consistent with our Huell/CG editor. I think you have a sufficient behavioral basis to act. --Drmargi (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the unreasonable multiple edits were a tip-off, then I organized the cast list at The Very Merry Muppets Christmas Movie per the DVD billing block, left a note on their talk page, and they reorganized it per their whim. Thennn, I noticed that they were doing some of the other weird stuff this character does, like arbitrarily rearranging categories from alphabetical to some other order. The Phoenix/Phoenix connection was the kicker. Thanks for looking through it! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

'Tis a small thing. I appreciate all you do for me. I'll put the Muppets article on my watch list. --Drmargi (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

All the best for 2017!

Hello Drmargi,
Enjoy the Winter Solstice and the Christmas and holiday season.
Thank you for all your good work during 2016 in maintaining, improving and expanding Wikipedia.
All the best for 2017! Cheers, — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  16:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Drmargi! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 16:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

And thank you both, belatedly, with best wishes for the same for you @Gareth Griffith-Jones: and @MarnetteD:. Please stay warm and enjoy some lovely Christmas cheer!! --Drmargi (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Surname

Please note it is not recommended per Wikipedia guideline to use first name WP:SURNAME. If you want to establish something different from guidelines, please ask the community's opinion first. Although there is ambiguities when the show refer to the bakers by their first name, it is common for many articles to refer to the full name all through in tables after the first mention, for example, The Voice (U.S. season 11). Hzh (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Reread the policy. It's not applicable, particularly in an instance where the competitors are identified by their first names. The table above provides the surnames; they don't have to be repeated. --Drmargi (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are inventing a guideline about using first names when competitors being identified by their first names. Given that this is a grey area, I would suggest that you don't keep reverting without getting some kind of consensus on this. A discussion has been started on Talk:The Great British Bake Off (series 7), do discuss it there and give the specific guidelines on this. Hzh (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I know you that like to revert edits, but please note that a discussion has been initiated in the talk page which you are aware of, do go there and state your case. You have been repeatedly informed of the guidelines per WP:BRD, particularly so when you indicated that it should be discussed. Hzh (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I would also ask you to be consistent in you edits. The earlier series have always used full names before someone changed it a few days ago - [1]. Therefore if you want to invoke WP:STATUSQUO (which by the way is not a guideline, but an essay), please be consistent and changed it back to the original state that existed for a number of years - [2]. Hzh (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Not contributing to the discussion here, but I am amused at how Hzh states "if you want to invoke WP:STATUSQUO (which by the way is not a guideline, but an essay)", but only half an hour before that said "[y]ou have been repeatedly informed of the guidelines per WP:BRD", which is - get this - an essay. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, yeah. And the articles have been generally first-name only for some while; now they're consistent. I've seen GANGS of them first-name only in the elimination table (cf: Top Chef, Food Network Star, etc.) with the full name in an introductory table above. My whole issue is that the policy refers to narrative use of surnames, not tables, and is mis-applied. The duplication of last names in the elimination tables is just clutter. --Drmargi (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: If you read the note, it is made clear that WP:BRD is meant to explain WP:Consensus and how to achieve it, and that is a policy. So I should say WP:Consensus, but discussion in either case is key. Do you want to introduce a new policy to Wikipedia on how to achieve consensus? Hzh (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: I think you make your rationale in the discussion already started. You rationale in any case does not deal with the point I raised about WP guidelines on names. It is something perhaps that should be clarified, therefore it might be worth requesting comments from the wider community. Hzh (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

To explain it, yes. But it is still an essay. Consensus is the policy; BRD is not. "I would also ask you to be consistent in you edits", indeed. But we digress - I'll let you two get back to topic. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: The same point about discussion is made in WP:CONSENSUS, so if all you want to do is complain about me not citing the correct policy, that's fine, it does not negate a word I said about the necessity for discussion. And what exactly is wrong with asking for consistency, given that Drmargi deliberately ignored the WP:STATUSQUO she cited in her reverts? Or are you implying that I have not been consistent in requesting discussion? Hzh (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I think the issue might need to be discussed by the wider community, perhaps in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television so that we can have a consistent style for naming contestants in reality/competition television shows. I will likely do that within the week, in the meantime I think all the articles on Bake Off should go back to the state they were in before the current rounds of edits, which in this case means undoing your edits for series 1-4. If you have any objection to the plan, then please raise it in Talk:The Great British Bake Off (series 7) before I revert anything in a day or two's time. Hzh (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion, fine. Reverts, no. Leave it alone and stop messing with it. It's consistent now. --Drmargi (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see you contributing in the talk page, for example addressing the point raised. Are you saying only the version you want should be kept? You changed 4 pages out of 7 to suit your preference, deliberating ignoring the WP:STATUSQUO you cited. Do you believe the reason you gave for your revert, and can you have a consistent valid reason? Hzh (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You should realise that saying in effect you only want to get your own way is not participating in discussion. You have shown a consistent pattern in refusing to discuss your edits, and that is not conducive to a collaborative environment in Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Jeez, are you always this bossy? You asked a question, you got an answer. Doesn't matter where I answer it. --Drmargi (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Making assertion that does not make sense is not discussion, either here or elsewhere. You said it is consistent now, but it was consistent before you reverted all 7 pages. As already said, you reverted based on inconsistent ground (therefore likely spurious because you don't adhere to it) like the WP:STATUSQUO you quoted - [3], nor do you intend to discuss it even though you reverted claiming that it should be discussed - [4] (where you also made the false claim that the edits you prefer have been there for some time when you in fact reverted a long-standing version). This is a consistent pattern of your behaviour, where you demanded discussion but chose not to participate apart from making cursory comments, making others jump through hoops discussing unimportant issue that you in fact don't want to discuss at all, as is evident from Talk:The Great British Bake Off (series 7) where no one agrees with your stance, which you didn't even bother defending.

There is enough evidence that your behaviour, misusing Wikipedia processes per WP:GAME, is disruptive to the collaborative environment in Wikipedia. Whether you choose to participate in the coming discussion is up to you, but in the future, if you continue to use revert as a weapon instead of engaging in productive discussion, your behaviour will be raised at ANI. Hzh (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Typical. You're not here to collaborate, and the best interest of the article is the furthest thing from your mind. You just want an excuse to do what you damned well please because you don't like being reverted. You read policy with no comprehension; otherwise we'd never have an issue here, since you persist in mis-applying the policy you used to justify your edits. You set up rules and make demands as a means to create barriers to collaboration, not to encourage it. It would be so refreshing if just once, you'd actually come into a discussion with an open mind instead of the attitude of a toddler throwing toys out of his crib. But no. It's your way or no way at all. --Drmargi (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid random accusations are not going to stick without evidence, and you offered none. The overwhelming evidence is that you are the one who is refusing to discuss. Examples have already been given, and you cannot invent participation in discussion that you demanded but then ignored. I could give more examples (including your many other random accusations), but this will do for now. Hzh (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Drmargi!

Happy New Year!

Drmargi,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Wyliepedia 08:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Heads up

Twobells is up to his old tricks again on BSG trying to force his UK slant again. Sigh. This is what, his third, fourth time trying to do this? Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you're joking. Third, at least. Does he not know the definition of insanity? Sigh... --Drmargi (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

And The Crown, Downton Abbey, and Sherlock as well! Does he understand what that website he sources to is?? He certainly doesn't understand the policy, which he manipulates to his own end. --Drmargi (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Well it appears they have decided to leave Wikipedia since they think we are "'USA stamping'" articles and "forcing US-centric nationalism over accuracy". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Has he honestly been going at Battlestar Galactica on this same topic for several years? Amazing. He even went ahead and put a UK-centric view (how hypocrotical) into Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. Seems like we're getting a break from it, and I didn't even have to file another report. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, gents! Nice to have all three of your here! He started with BSG, but spread his net wider as he went along. His US stamping, etc. got to be a bit of a mania. No loss there; whatever positive he contributed was so outweighed by his aggressive edit warring. It's a shame, really. Meanwhile, a meat puppet has popped up at Downton Abbey to take up the cause by trying to force a wholly inaccurate edit saying Viking River Cruises provides some funding rather than DA being a Masterpiece co-production. Sigh... --Drmargi (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

And to you, of course! Interesting little titbit he added on his talk page. He accuses us of being US-centric (even called me nationalistic once, even though I'm Australian), while being UK-centric. I guess in his view that if you're not one, you're the other. Over two years here, and never a dull moment. Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I just saw that - hilarious! The funniest part was always that we could never seem to convince him that you were an Aussie. He's always been driven by this fanatical need to own anything that has remote British connections for Britain. Wonder what he'd do if we altered all the productions from Carnival Films to show they are American, given Carnival is owned by NBC. He'd go insane. Ah, well, the diva quit seems firm, so that's one less headache we have. --Drmargi (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Are there hemispheres in the Wikiworld? And if so, do those whose editing career goes down the pipes swirl clockwise or counterwise? — Wyliepedia 15:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

From what I hear, if you dump an entire editing career down the pipe, it clogs up and nothing swirls! Also an update on the talk page - got the nationalistic stamp again. Speak of the devil. Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I was about to leave a link to that AtW but you beat me too it. CAWylie you forgot to mention how it goes straight down if you are editing while living on the equator :-) Cheers to all. MarnetteD|Talk 15:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The mention of "Anglo-phobic editors" in the earlier version of the rant is hilarious. That means I have been watching programmes that terrify me since first seeing The Avengers in the mid 1960's. How have I survived it :-) MarnetteD|Talk 15:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we should have nationalistic t-shirts made! --Drmargi (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

And in closing, adding a Happy New Year to MarnettD and Wylie! Absent Aussie Legend, the gang's all here, and that was a treat. --Drmargi (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay lets stop with the grave dancing people. Twobells was blocked for disruptive editing, edit warring and failure to comply with unblock conditions. They were not blocked for being wrong in their specific edits and their block does not mean the content of their edits was wrong or that it automatically makes the contents of your edits correct (no opinion has been passed on that.) It takes multiple people to edit war and while warnings were issued to others involved (some of whom are on this page) no one else completely crossed the line. However they were treading it closely and broke the edit warring rules spirit if not the wording. Some other editors were one edit from being blocked themselves. So lets just concentrate on the editing and the quality of the encyclopaedia here. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 20:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You're right of course, but hopefully we can be forgiven for expelling a bit of pent up frustration after two years of being on the receiving end of Twobells' insults and abuse of policy to one degree or another. And yes, at times one or more of us has been one edit from 3RR when engaged with Twobells, but with three important differences: a) we knew when to stop; b) we engaged in consensus building on the talk page, something Twobells rarely did and; c) we didn't feel it necessary to stoop to personal insults at every available opportunity or to push a clearly stated personal agenda. Alex the Whovian and I have repeatedly been falsely accused of all manner of anti-British/pro-American sentiments in our editing, simply for acknowledging the American role in producing a group of British/American televisions programs, as is appropriate in an encyclopedia. After several fruitless short blocks and two AN3 reports left to go stale in the face of Twobells slow edit warring practices, which I mentioned on your talk page earlier, a little relief that an editor this disruptive no longer presents an impediment to our editing these articles was bound to come out in our discussion. Please also bear in mind that the lion's share of what was said was before Twobells was blocked, much less indeffed. Meanwhile, his last round of personal insults has been allowed to stand, despite it being the reason for his indef, and that's disappointing to see. --Drmargi (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Revert, ok, please give reason.

Was it that you didn'y think the comment was appropriate? 16:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful memories shared

Hello DM. When you get a chance please read the memories that O shared with me in this thread User talk:Onel5969#A thank you then.2C now and for the future. A real treat for those of us who love the theatre. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Code Black

Sorry about that my DVR cut out the final 15 mins — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitchellLunger (talk • contribs) 23:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I wondered; thanks for the update. It was pretty clear that the whole episode was a dream by the end. Watch it online - you missed a lot, and it was very good! --Drmargi (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

MisterAnthony

Let me know if you see more socks of MisterAnthony (talk · contribs), and I'll block them. Or, seeing how his account is globally locked, you could report him to m:SRG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I will @NinjaRobotPirate:. Cyphoidbomb and I have been watching him for a while now, but he just keeps coming back, and I've become reluctant to continue bothering Cyphoid about him. He IP hops with frustrating ease! I've been considering filing a WP:LTA report, but it's an involved process, and I haven't had the time (and probably won't for at least another week.) I'll let you know what he's doing in the interim. --Drmargi (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I received a notification that you had mentioned me in this section. But I can't see any mention here or in the history. Was the notification an error, and if so do you have any idea what caused it? RolandR (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, for the bother; it was an error. For some reason. when I wrote the reply above, WP went, well, apeshit for a few minutes, and I had all manner of stuff on my screen. That might have triggered it. Mea culpa! --Drmargi (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I also got a notification. — goethean 15:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

So sorry. I have not a clue what happened, or what I might have done. --Drmargi (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

3RR block

Hi. You have been blocked for 72 hours due to violating the three revert rule and for overall edit warring. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 10:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Unbelievable

[5] — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  10:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey-ho. I stood my ground against two editors stirring the shit, and others ignoring the policies on verifiability, reliable sources and original research. The laugh is the article is locked and the whole thing had gone stale. No regrets. Thanks, pal. --Drmargi (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair point, I didn't notice the page was protected. El_C 11:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yo El_C, that being the case- you know, the page protection making this block not as preventative as it otherwise would be- how bout an early unblock on the promise of no more edit-warring?

And on a peripheral matter, perhaps you could ask User:AlexTheWhovian to desist from posting here for the time being; it could be construed as WP:GRAVEDANCING.

... and here! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  12:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for listening- cheers — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 11:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I already had a previous response that read "please don't beat someone when they're down, it is less than graceful," but the comment in question was removed, so it seemed moot. The block in theory still has a deterrent factor. But yes, I could be open to an early unblock. El_C 11:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

That sounds great, El_C. Perhaps you could suggest conditions you would consider? — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 11:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a self-imposed 1RR or 2RR for a week or two once the page is unprotected would be one suggestion so as to avoid a repetition of this. El_C 11:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Response to it all

I've spent the last 24 hours thinking about all this, and whether I want to take up El_C's unblock offer on the conditions listed, and have decided to respectfully decline the offer. It takes at least two, and in this case, four to edit war; none of the editors involved has clean hands. Any conditions would have to apply to all, or are unacceptable. Let me note the following as why I chose to take the position I have:

• El_C failed to exercise due diligence and see that the article was locked and the report stale when he blocked me. I have no particular issue with him, but do want to note this.
• AlexTheWhovian was technically at 4R (as was I) when he reported me. He pushed his reverts to the limit before becoming so indignant. I don't see him ever being blocked for the fourth, tiny, edit, but he still waited until he'd exhausted his reverts before reporting. Again, I have no real issue with him, just am saddened that he chose to ignore multiply sourced content and instead continue the edit war before pointing fingers.
• Rusted AutoParts was warned about his own edit warring and haranguing on my talk page earlier in the day, and had the same pattern of repetitive reverts over time. Moreover, he seems to have appointed himself chief giver of orders, but made no contributions to the discussion. Instead, he brought his moaning and groaning about me to the discussion, which is now an utter shambles.
• Winkelvi showed up to support RAP and support some imaginary grievance, serving as RAP's meat puppet. He contributed nothing to the discussion other than acting as the school bully's helper.
• Softlavender joined the discussion and was at least constructive and on topic. But evidently there is some issue with RAP that caused him to go off the rails; it was this that completely derailed the existing discussion. It will have to be hatted and restarted (hopefully with RAP and Winklevi gone) to meaningfully proceed. I thank her for her efforts to get the issue resolved.

Meanwhile Favre1fan93, the editor whose WP:OR original edit I challenged (and who arguably started the edit war) has abandoned the discussion. The burden remains with him, in the face of multiple sources specifically identifying the character as President of the United States, provide a source that he might enter the timeline prior to his presidency. As I say, there are no clean hands, so I will sit out my block and then see where the day takes me when it ends.

I thank Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi kindly for his concern and advocacy. I have no recollection that we've ever edited together before, but hope that we will in future. And Gareth: you're a pal! --Drmargi (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Singalong with Bob![6]
It's unbelievable, it's strange but true,
It's inconceivable it could happen to you.
You go north and you go south
Just like bait in the fish's mouth.
Ya must be livin' in the shadow of some kind of evil star.
It's unbelievable it would get this far.
It's undeniable what they'd have you to think,
It's indescribable it can drive you to drink.
(Writer: Bob Dylan Copyright)
— Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  11:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Chicago Justice

You recently reverted my edit without an explanation. Your link to WP:UNDU refers to personal opinions in article, not to format and other mechanic issues. Jdavi333 (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

See Chicago Fire (season 5), Chicago P.D. (season 4), Chicago Med (season 2). Jdavi333 (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If you had taken the care to read my original edit summaries, you'd have seen my explanation. I explained the edit the first time. The lists of crossover characters were removed from all four articles, per WP:UNDUE. They are simply fancruft; the nature of the show is characters will cross over, and lists of who has are unnecessary in the main article. They are better placed, if anywhere, in the seasonal article. Readers wanting information on these characters can refer back to the articles on their own shows; they're readily identifiable. --Drmargi (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I did read the edit summaries. WP:UNDUE seems to be referring to how opinions should be expresses in articles, not necessarily lists of facts. See what I wrote on the articles talk page. Jdavi333 (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The point of UNDUE is how much attention any component of an article should receive. The Chicago PD/Fire/Med characters make occasional appearances as part of the shared universe. Every appearance isn't important enough to document. I can see possibly doing it in seasonal articles when a connected group of episodes, such as those that ran a couple weeks ago, are broadcast. But every time some character from another show turns up? The lists were huge, and unnecessary to the reader's understanding of the individual shows. A simple narrative discussion of how the four shows occasionally share characters is all that's needed. Lists belong in the fan wikis. --Drmargi (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

o_0

"The lunatics are in my hall / The paper holds their folded faces to the floor / And every day the paper boy brings more." — Wyliepedia 01:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that just left me scratching my noggin. --Drmargi (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Fall 2017-18 Schedule

I'm predicting the future from 1 month if the WGA say yes to the deal before it expired and Bordertown would be renewed for 3 more seasons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:E589:A200:43E:C631:81C6:8BDE (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

We don't deal in some editor's predictions based on nothing but whim. We deal in what we can verify. We will add the individual networks' schedules once they are announced at the broadcast upfront between May 14 and May 17. The WGA strike's impact is yet to be seen, if it even happens. We can't edit based on a "what if" scenario and the status of one program of interest to you. --Drmargi (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Talking Saul

Do you not see the confusion with those headings? At first I thought it was referring to season 2 and season 3 of Talking Saul, when in fact it's season 1 and season 2. Would like to clarify that it's referring to BCS's seasons, since now that you reverted, it's again unclear. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It didn't strike me that way, but let me take a second look. The addition struck me as clunky. Hang on for a bit... --Drmargi (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I see what I did! I have a thought, but need to get to my computer v. my iPad. --Drmargi (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay? -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

My idea doesn't seem to work any better. Given the most recent edits, we've got to make the headings clearer, that's for sure. Let's go with your idea for now. --Drmargi (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, @Wikipedical:... take a look at what we did on the Mr. Robot Wiki with its after show, which started S2. Let's not overthink this, but it might be worth a look at how we organized the table: http://mrrobot.wikia.com/wiki/Hacking_Robot --Drmargi (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Combining the tables? Sure. That's definitely better than what's in place right now. Maybe keep the separate colors to denote the separate BCS seasons. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking more in terms of the episode numbering, but the combined table works, too. --Drmargi (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Where did you get those Talking Saul episode numbers from? Any references? --My-wiki-photos (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	thank you for clearing it up Coasterdude1 (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but thank you! These two needed a fresh eye and a short break. --Drmargi (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

User warnings

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Call the Midwife: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. This pertains also to other vandalism by the same IP. Thank you, and please pardon this reminder. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm well aware of them, having issued a couple this morning for edit warring. I find it's rarely productive to use them with IP hoppers. --Drmargi (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Alas. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup. If this keeps up, PP will be the next step. --Drmargi (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, @Hertz1888: it appears our favorite toe rag has been blocked. Whew! --Drmargi (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I will use the rights with care. --Drmargi (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Why were my Call The Midwife edits changed?

I provided a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViscountViktor (talk • contribs) 11:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Cream tea

You are joking, I assume?? In the UK (which is where the article discusses), the use of whipped cream would be viewed with disdain, horror and disgust. I shall find suitable references. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Never use whipped cream. It’s utterly improper." [7]

"...the focus should be on fresh locally produced ingredients, and definitely no whipped cream!" [8]

"Whipped cream just won’t cut it for a cream tea, and I hear horror stories of squirty cream from a canister being offered..." [9]

"...clotted cream is better than whipped cream, because of the excessive volume size of whipped cream required." [10]

Etc. Although the earlier text does emphasise that traditionally clotted cream rather than whipped cream is used, the second mention of whipped cream does not come with the same caveat. However, if it is in fact used in some places (thankfully, places far distant from Devon and Cornwall), I will reluctantly conclude that your edit should stand. Do you have clotted cream in California? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No doubt all of that is true, and heaven knows I'd avoid the stuff (I did encounter it in the UK once, but can't recall where.) But it's also a matter of taste. Got a source that it's inferior to everyone? Why not just rephrase in such a way that incorporates one or more of the sources above? The first one is rather funny. Oh, and yes, we have clotted cream in California, imported from the UK, fabulous scones, and proper English afternoon tea as well that comes from a sizable ex-pat British community who came for the sun and stayed. (And believe me, I'm a fanatic for tea being proper. Most tea made in restaurants here would make you cry. But you should taste mine!) ----Dr.Margi ✉ 14:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I would say that "inferior" is an accurate summation of the sources above - but "non-traditional" probably covers it. If you're ever over here, I recommend the Southern Cross tea room in Newton Poppleford - best in Devon! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Good to know; one can never have too many tearooms on one's travel agenda. I'll have to look at where Newton Poppleford is. That's almost as good a name as Ashford in the Water (in Derbyshire). When last in Devon, I had a nice cream tea in a little place in Exmouth. I understand the Bridge Tearoom in Exeter is quite good, too. We have a great place in Pasadena called the Rose Tree Cottage; the owner is British, and it's as close to the real deal you'll find in sunny So Cal. If you find yourself here, give me a shout!

And yes, non-traditional seems like a happy medium. (ETA: Oh, lordy. Someone else just removed that.) ----Dr.Margi ✉ 15:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Fargo S3 "overcooking"

You don't wanna pick up the spare or try for the 7-10 split? Or discuss it over a glass of sherry? Pardon me while I nest among the stars, at least for the weekend. — Wyliepedia 22:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I was never good at a 7-10 split, but can definitely be persuaded to discuss over a glass of sherry, as long as it's Domecq, preferably La Ina. I still have lovely memories of a tour there! I do get weary of these little character overviews suddenly becoming top-heavy with minutia. You nest among the stars; I'm doing a Queen/Audience/Crown marathon with lashings of tea. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 22:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Fargo S3 "british accent"

He has a british accent, but V.M. Varga read the verse "Curved legs" and tell this is from his country, this verse wrote Kornej Tsjoekovski, who is from Russia. This confirms his origin more than his "British accent". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.208.147 (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Uh, OK. Discuss the matter on the show talk page. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding AlexTheWhovian: Thank you

Hello, Drmargi. I want to express my support of your confrontation with AlexTheWhovian. Thank you. You are not alone in your opinion of his unethical behavior. Fdssdf (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure I'd characterize it as unethical, but that might also be a semantic hair split. It just saddens me because he used to be such a lovely, collaborative person, but has become so aggressive recently, and with such a double-standard where his behavior is concerned. I miss the old Alex. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 03:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm posting here in good faith that I won't be reverted, with no harshness or attacking from myself; I would greatly appreciate if both of you would respond to the respective discussions I've started. I honestly don't see what the issue(s) is. Or even what you may have done in the situation that I found myself in, that would be even handier. -- Alex^TW 05:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the point, frankly. This is about you being right, not doing what's best for the article. Where's the discussion on the article talk page? Nowhere to be seen. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Article talk page, user talk page - as long as it exists, does it matter where the discussion took place? Still interested in how you would have handled the situtation. -- Alex^TW 03:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Die Hard 2 cast section and character descriptions

Drmargi, there's a edit war issue on Die Hard 2 about the cast section and character descriptions. A lot of film articles have character descriptions which I feel are very necessary, but that version of the cast section has been switched back and reverted by TheOldJacobite and Deloop82. The cast section should be switch back to it's original version for WP:STATUSQUO reasons until the argument on the article's talk page is set. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism?

People fuck up. Especially when editing on a phone. Youu shouldn't throw around the word "vandalism" so lightly. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but did I know you were on a phone? That's why I qualified it. Dry your tears. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 08:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

"Dry your tears"? Holy fuck—those are some people skills. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Doctor Who - Viewership section

In one part of the Viewership section it says that there have been three notable periods of high ratings. It only says the first two which is the Dalekmania period and the Tom Baker era but it doesn't say the third period which was David Tennant's run. So I added in the third period but then you took it down because it was unsourced. If you're gonna go around and delete people's contributions then why don't you add it in yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XtremeNerdz12 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I see no need to. You have a history, under two user names, of removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced content. The standard here is sourcing to reliable sources. Edit under one user name, and meet the standard for sourcing, and you don't have a problem. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

OWNership of Los Angeles bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics

Tantrum over. We're done.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I am concerned that you are too invested into getting your way at that article, especially since you have a) move-warred against two different editors, and b) treated everybody who disagrees with you on the talk page as idiots. pbp 21:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC) I always find that the siren cry of WP:OWN!!! is usually an editor's last stand when they can't win an argument any other way. That, and making accusations of move-warring (remember WP:STATUS and the like. It is possible to feel strongly about an issue without it being ownership of an article. I'm not the one who declared myself as having an intractable stance. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 23:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC) WP:STATUS does not lead where you think it leads. WP:STATUSQUO does not say what you think it does, either, if anything, it says don't do the move-warring you engaged in. And frankly, I cannot think of a bolder statement of intractability than move-warring, which you engaged in on the page in question and I did not. The move warring was wrong, there's NO policy or guideline that justifies move-warring with multiple editors, and you need to admit that it was wrong for you to do it and thank your lucky stars you weren't blocked for it. You've coupled that with personal attacks toward your detractors, ranging from "more interested making moves than the actual article", to accusing people of having no familiarity with the LA Times or any other sources in the article. Your comments attempt to deny agency to anyone who disagrees with you and has fewer edits to the article than you do. If you want me to respect you as an editor, you've got to give some respect to me and the people with whom you disagree. You've done nothing but treat us like rank idiots who understand neither Wikipedia policy nor the 2024/2028 (and yes, they are one and the same) source material. This while often grossly misinterpreting policy yourself. That's not OK. pbp 23:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The Great British Bake Off

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please give valid reasons before reverting, you do not revert claiming WP:STATUSQUO without actually giving a valid reason, especially the edits you reverted actually are ones that comply with the guidelines. If you want me to gain consensus first, then I'd be happy to, but you should note that should we get to that stage, you are expected to contribute in a full discussion. You have already been warned multiple times for refusing to participate in meaningful discussion, using reverts as weapon. It will not be tolerated this time. Hzh (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's start with you actually discussing. As is your usual habit, so far, you're just giving orders. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

It is simply a reminder that participation in discussion is necessary in a collaborative environment, and that you have a history of ignoring requests to participate, as well as demanding discussion and then refused to participate (all the details are in the edit history, and it is impossible to deny them). It is also to stress that other editors cannot be expected to keep doing what you want them do do without your willingness to reciprocate in discussion, and that includes you giving valid reasons for your constant reverts. Hzh (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Warning

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Given your repeated refusal to give valid reason for reverts while at the same time demanding discussion, the next time you revert an edit without giving any valid reason you will be referred to the ANI. Aggressive reverts without valid reason or making any attempt at meaningful discussion is not conducive to a collaborative environment in editing. Hzh (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Your usual threats and horseshit, I see. Don't discuss the issue, make it about the editor. Discuss the issue and you don't have a problem. But you won't, will you? You need to be the bully and make it about the editor. Get lost. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 02:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The Great British Bake Off

As you wanted a discussion of the issue, please contribute at Talk:The_Great_British_Bake_Off#Should details of personnel changes be moved from lead to main body of article? Hzh (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk about killing an ant with a nuclear bomb. Why not just discuss the damned section? Always the bully approach. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Bold face

You reverted my bolding on David Hodges (CSI) asking why bold face. Yet if you look at every other CSI character, such as Gil Grissom, Catherine Willows and Sara Sidle you will see the ones they were considered main for are also bold. So why should this one character be different? This is a pretty standard practice across the various shows on WP. Look at SVU characters and you will see the same thing, such as Olivia Benson. - Galatz^Talk 15:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It's nothing I'd seen before, and I edit plenty of TV articles. Given the absence of an edit summary and no explanation of the BF in-article, it was a reasonable revert. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) May I also add and suggest reading MOS:NOBOLD, which has the term "avoid" in it? I also usually unbold everything I find that is not the article's title. — Wyliepedia 22:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, good point. See the message I left on AussieLegend's page, too. These are anything but standard practice. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 22:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The Walking Dead (video game series)

Hi User:Drmargi, do you think the video game series of The Walking Dead should use colours that match the cover arts?--Theo Mandela (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't care less. I don't follow the show or video games. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

No User:Drmargi, I just mean tables for TV seasons use colours based on the DVD, so by rights, should the video games with episode tables do the same? Thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I suppose so. I think this business of matching the DVD box is silly, so I don't pay much attention to it. Perhaps you'd have better luck asking an editor who works on these article. I'm not going to be much help, I'm afraid. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 23:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks anyway.--Theo Mandela (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Bakers vs Fakers Junior

Have you ever heard of Bakers vs Fakers Junior? I was fixing Bakers vs Fakers Junior (season 2) and I can't verify any of the details in the article making me wonder if it's a hoax. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll have to check on a junior version, but the U.S. Food Network produces Bakers vs. Fakers and a savory version Cooks vs. Cons. It wouldn't surprise me if there is a junior version; Food Network has been mad for junior versions of their shows of late. Give me a bit of time to check their website. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 05:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing. All I can find is the adult show. I checked the program guides for both FN and its sister channel, The Cooking Channel, and nada. The entire evening schedule for October 10 is Chopped and one episode of Chopped Junior. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 05:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I suspected. I followed every link and checked everything I could find but I could find nothing. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I also notice that it's set up as a elimination series with scoring. I don't watch the real show in either form, but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. I believe the judges find the con/fake from among a panel of four contestants each week. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 14:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

If there was any doubt as to the legitimacy of the article, I think this edit ended those. This is not the first fake article created by the editor. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see the last edit before the article was zapped. Did you notice the name of the editor? It wasn't much good as a fake if they don't even know how the show works. Just FYI should the need arise, the real show has done one full season, and is in the middle of its second. Lorraine Pascale is the host, not a judge. Neither version of the show has its own article. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. The editor was "Grimminhudson". He/she added a "Dancing with the stars" image, complete with caption, to the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much a dead give-away. But it kept us on our toes. I'll be on the alert for the little stinker. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 21:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

He seems to have gotten the message that fake articles aren't appropriate, but has now created DWTS Junior season 4 on his user page, using the DWTS season 23 image. DWTS Junior season 1 is scheduled to premiere in 2018 according to the DWTS article. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Clueless. It always reminds me of the folk who don't know the definition of insanity. (Leaving aside the question of why we need a DTWS Junior...) ----Dr.Margi ✉ 06:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

I see you removed the "citation needed" tag on the Thirteenth Doctor page. Maybe I am ignorant then, but how exactly can you WP:RS claim that "most fans"(out of a fandom numbering in the millions) think or believe anything at all? 197.88.60.232 (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

PS. In order to "undo" my edit, you would have had to go to the Edit History of Thirteenth Doctor, where I very clearly pointed out that I had started a discussion of that article's talk page about this issue. Yet you merely removed the tag, without even attempting to engage in the discussion. Why is that? 197.88.60.232 (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Top Gear

Wow!, I didn't expect this sort or response over a bad link. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: My goodness. I grab a few zzz's and all has gone berserk. Why doesn't the IP just start the flipping article? I guess it's more fun and less work to have a hissy fit. Oh and I see Sladen-the-bully has weighed in. Always helpful. At least he started something like a stub article. Let's see if he and the IP do anything to improve it, or whether it's all about winning. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully the shared end goal is to welcome and retain newcomers and support their retention and transition into long-term contributors. What is important is that the Encyclopedia wins. Positive guidance and welcoming words hopefully have a longer-lasting effect on newcomers than endless revert notifications, however by-the-book the basis for these reverts might be. —Sladen (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm prepared to give it a chance but, as it stands, it provides less information than the actual episode entry. If it isn't substantially expanded within a month it should be redirected again. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

marnette

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Surey that's a girl's name? But I would just like to make a further comment & question. This started as follows: Said user on both pages deleted stuff that was actually clearly referenced one click away or on the same page, and after that never doing anything to fix but only delete immediately (lack of citations being an excuse rather than a reason; it wasn't about refusal to offer proof). I never had disputes like this here before (which is normally a good thing). What am I supposed to do in cases like that when dialogue has already failed? Spiny Norman (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

MarnetteD is a man, as Ponyo pointed out at AN3 and it's quite evident on his user page. Please stop referring to him as her. I have no position on the argument at hand. However, the community has an expectation that once an issue has been discussed and resolved at one forum, you will not move on to another in an effort to pursue it further. We call that "forum shopping", and the community takes a very dim view of it. You need to let it go, find a way to work with MarnetteD and move forward. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 23:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Or, forum shopping can also be simply what someone does because he is new to disputes and wants help. Speaking as someone who just tried to find the right way, it is actually not so easy to figure out what to do (or not to do) in a case like this. So my experience is this: A much more experienced user simply says I'm doing it wrong and offers no help at all; I finally have had enough and complain, then other much more experienced users tell me that I'm doing that wrong too. A friend of Marnette simply called me a waste of space. Mind you, I'm NOT trying to pin this on you, I'm just saying the whole experience feels like everbody is trying to bite the noob (as in WP:NOOB). (And as you can see the two commentators did at least understand what I meant, so it's not all in my mind.) As for the name, if that is so then it was not done on purpose. If I take off the capital D, that leaves a name that sounds, and googles, as decidedly female?? I've looked at the user page for the second time now, but it's all "this user is...". So actually no, with that in mind, I do not think it's obvious. (PS I mentioned it on the talk page but the remark was removed without a comment from said user.) Spiny Norman (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

It should be readily apparent by now that everyone is telling you to move on, me included. You're playing the "noob" card, but you've been editing here a long time, so that rings pretty false, at least to me. You have feedback from AN3 and AN/I. You've been told the gender of the editor and are still grinding on that. Let it all go and move on. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Drmargi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring complaint about The Sinner (TV series)

Please see the result of this complaint. This appears to be a case of slow edit warring, and it is normal to wait for the result of a discussion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Ed, I have a lot of respect for you, and I'm sorry to see you fell for Alex's baloney. Did you look at who was on the other side of those occasional and fairly unconnected reverts? Clearly not. Alex doesn't seem to grasp that it takes two to edit war; he routinely assumes the role of "he who is right" and is on the other side of many of the edit wars he reports - and he gets away with it time and again. His behavior is becoming increasingly aggressive, and he takes ownership of far too many TV articles. It's time to start calling Alex on his behavior, not enable it. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Hello Drmargi: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thank you @Winkelvi:, and the best of holiday wishes to you! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Drmargi!!


Hi Drmargi, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

And the same to you, @Davey2010:! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 00:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Aren't we all? I wonder if he ever found one. Best wishes and compliments of the season to you, @MarnetteD: ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Heddwch ac ewyllys da

		Compliments of the season Wishing you all the best for 2018 — good health, sufficient wealth, peace and contentment
		Cheers! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 18:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Who could ask for more? And the same to you, @Gareth Griffith-Jones:! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Major Crimes

How best to indicate that the Stroh character is a carryover from The Closer, just as some of the folks in the squad room were? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, @Baseball Bugs:. This got lost in the greetings, and I darned near missed it, so I moved it up. Let me review the article and see how to mention not only Stroh, but a couple other characters (Kendall, Hobbs) as well. There's a way. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

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

You are encouraged to change

--<span style="font-variant:small-caps; text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">--<font color="blue">Dr.</font><font color="red">Margi</font></span> [[User talk:Drmargi#top|<big>✉</big>]] : ----Dr.Margi ✉

to

--<span style="font-variant:small-caps; text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">--<span style="color: blue;">Dr.</span><span style="color: red;">Margi</span></span> [[User talk:Drmargi#top|<big>✉</big>]] : ----Dr.Margi ✉

—Anomalocaris (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Drmargi!

Happy New Year!

Drmargi,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Drmargi!

Happy New Year!

Drmargi,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Wyliepedia 16:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Your signature

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

You are encouraged to change

--<span style="font-variant:small-caps; text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">--<font color="blue">Dr.</font><font color="red">Margi</font></span> [[User talk:Drmargi#top|<big>✉</big>]] : ----Dr.Margi ✉

to

--<span style="font-variant:small-caps; text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">--<span style="color: blue;">Dr.</span><span style="color: red;">Margi</span></span> [[User talk:Drmargi#top|<big>✉</big>]] : ----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)

Abbyjjjj96

I have to talk to you, Drmargi. It's about this new user Abbyjjjj96. I think she's spreading gossip regarding sexual assault allegations on various pages, including Sylvester Stallone, Robert Knepper and such. She's mostly editing stuff mainly involving sexual assault allegations in some pages. I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to spread gossip from tabloids and such. User:Sock and User:Tenebrae had have conversations about her edits and some of her edits were reverted for good faith. I reverted one of them on Sylvester Stallone because the source was considered at times unreliable. I thought I should mention that to you. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Better Call Saul

Addressed my concern on the first seasons talk page. Optimistic Wikipedian (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not exactly inclined to given your rudeness above. Remember that little words like please and thank you get you a lot further than giving an editor orders. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

No need to be hostile towards me. Remember that i just wanted to let you know that i gave my opinion on having an article for the first season of Better Call Saul on its talk page. Anyways thanks for responding to my message and please, if you can, let me know what you think of having the first season of Better Call Saul as a standalone article on Wikipedia. Thanks! :) Optimistic Wikipedian (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Three's nothing hostile about pointing out that your giving me orders is rude. As I said before, please goes a long way. I've responded now. In the meantime, do not remove the redirect again; you need consensus for that. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 08:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, so can you please take it to a consensus. Thanks. Optimistic Wikipedian (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

You want the split, so you need to gain consensus. That's how it works. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 23:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your signature

Restoring a deleted thread:

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

You are encouraged to change

--<span style="font-variant:small-caps; text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">--<font color="blue">Dr.</font><font color="red">Margi</font></span> [[User talk:Drmargi#top|<big>✉</big>]] : ----Dr.Margi ✉

to

--<span style="font-variant:small-caps; text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">--<span style="color: blue;">Dr.</span><span style="color: red;">Margi</span></span> [[User talk:Drmargi#top|<big>✉</big>]] : ----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)

Were you able to paste your signature into the Signature field in Preferences, then copy and see if you got the whole thing? What happened? —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Karen Chen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | 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) 09:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Happy St. David's Day

The leek is one of the national emblems of Wales, worn along with the daffodil (in Welsh, the daffodil is known as "Peter's leek", Cenhinen Bedr) on St. David's Day. According to one legend, King Cadwaladr of Gwynedd ordered his soldiers to identify themselves by wearing the vegetable on their helmets in an ancient battle against the Saxons that took place in a leek field. Cheers!‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 15:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

References

The Crown (TV series): Engvar

I believe the following are factually correct:

• - this article does (and has for some time) contain a mix of American and British English (contrary to your earlier assertion).
• - the MoS is clear that edits purely to change words from one English style to another are inappropriate.
• - where there is dispute, the policy is to trace back to the first post-stub version where a particular style was used (as Alex cited in his earlier edit, although he mistakenly assumed date format was part of Engvar). The earliest version where this is the case dates from 7 November 2016 and uses British English

Given the subject matter of the article and the international co-production there is also a credible case to be made on the basis of national ties.

If there is dispute over the application of policy, pending resolution, edits to change words from one variety to another are not appropriate. MapReader (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

You need to read WP:CONSISTENCY. MOS:RETAIN addresses the desire to change an article (not individual words and phrases) with no identifiable linguistic link from one language to another at an editor's whim (such as COLOR v. COLOUR). It says nothing about mixing languages, as you are doing. WP:CONSISTENCY on the other had, not only justifies, but support changes of stray uses of British English to American English, given it is the dominant language in the article for which there is consensus.

I would avoid challenging Alex's knowledge of policy at your peril. We've had our differences of late, but he has a broad and deep understanding of policy, and is seldom incorrect about application of it. You, on the other hand, need to brush up on several policies, including the two above, WP:CONSENSUS, and especially any covering discussion and edit warring. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The policy is very clear, and Alex cited it correctly, except for assuming that date format was part of Engvar. If there is consensus as to the Engvar for this article, please point me to it? MapReader (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring this article. We both recognise that it has for a long time contained a mix of British and American Engvar. The correct way to resolve this is to refer back to the first post-stub edit that used a particular variety, which was British English on 7 November 2016. You are aware that this is the MoS provision yet continued to try and edit-war American English into the article. I attempted to revert to the position of mixed usage, as a compromise, but you have continued your edits. I have applied WP:Commonality to address the disputed terms, as a further compromise and the clear preferred position under the MoS, but you have continued your edits. You have not engaged on the talk page nor offered any justification for your position, other than 'consistency' which of course cuts both ways, the article having been consistent in British usage just recently. My Commonality edits were made this morning and you have reverted them three times this afternoon, please take note of WP:3RR MapReader (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:MapReader_reported_by_User:Winkelvi_(Result:_) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)