This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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.
(Redacted) Anyway, please stop deleting legitimate citations and entries, the 4400 tv series was a joint international co-production as reflected by the citations, what is a co-incidence is that one of the citations confirm BSG 2004 was a Anglo-American co-production! If you continue to delete legitimate entries I must report you. You stated on the 440 tv series page 'Once your edit is reverted, it stays at status quo and the burden is on you to discuss and gain consensus on the talk page.' You seem to be mistaken, it was you who reverted long-standing edits and citations. Twobells (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@Twobells: Your claim that Drmargi is the one "who reverted long-standing edits and citations." is clearly incorrect. A review of The 4400's edit history shows that the content being reverted was only recently added, by you. Drmargi was quite correct in this edit summary. You both need to discuss the matter on the talk page and gain consensus for the changes. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I see you know each other and have weighed in defending reverts by a bad faith editor, your behaviour speaks for itself. Drmargi took it upon themselves to follow my edits and revert without debate, I think that also speaks for itself. Why was she suddenly on the 4400 article page reverting my edits? Essentially Drmargi checked my edit history, came on to the article and reverted my edit on a page that has for a very long time had consensus on the fact that the show was a co-production and consensus was reached by many editors, not just two partisan editors who show bad faith. It is inexcusable for a editor to follow another around reverting their edits seemingly maliciously. Twobells (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Legitimacy, whatever that may be, is an evaluative standard, not an absolute, and not the criterion by which we evaluate content. You are taking media sources that report collaboration between a British network and an American network, and interpreting that The 4400, among others, is somehow an international co-production. You've tried this with several productions, each time clearly failing to gain any consensus for your edits. Instead, you pull supposed Wikipedia policy out of thin air, you threaten to "report" editors at every available opportunity, you abuse warning templates, and you ignore your own editing warring. You clearly lack understanding of basic editing principles and community expectations for editors. You're here to push a POV, not to improve this encyclopedia. You need step back, learn basic editorial principles and policies, stop threatening every time you're challenged and adopt a collaborative attitude, or you will find yourself blocked over and over again. --Drmargi (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
You still don't get it, you are employing Original Research trying to fight legitimate citations both media and author-baased that's just not on. When you talk about 'consensus' you are talking about you and one other who are attempting to block any other editor editing the article. Only at the very last have I had to report you due to your constant 3RR reverts and stubbornness in not meeting consensus. As for collaborating with other editors, my history shows that until BSG 2004 and meeting editors with essentially NPOV positions we've always worked well together, that cannot be said the same for you according to your talk page. You have been very quick with criticisim and have failed time and time again showing Good Faith. In closing I find it astonishing that you of all people shout that others are pushing POV, jsut why won't you allow perfectly reasonable citations being added to the article? You have yet to show a single legitimate reason as to why these citations and edits cannot be included. As for 'blocking', once the admin understood what was going on that block was reverted. Twobells (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? First, you were unblocked because you gave an admin your word that you would not edit war again. So what did you do? You found a new article, one that's been on my watch list for some while, and created the same problem there as on BSG, then when reverted, started a new edit war. Blocks are not reverted. Editors are unblocked if they address their behavior sufficiently to satisfy an admin that they will not repeat the behavior. Given you now have four blocks for edit warring and have started yet another edit war at The 4400, it's clear that's not something you're prepared to do. At no time did the admin act on your block because they "understood what was going on." That's not how unblocking works.
Frankly, I'm increasingly weary of going in circles with you. Your sweeping lack of understanding of policy, your inability to differentiate a co-production (a point not in dispute) from country of origin of a production (the whole issue, and one you can't seem to grasp) and your intractable clinging to a fixed position make discussion pointless. Moreover, I am heartily weary of your continuous personal attacks, baseless accusations and lack of civility. Therefore, I am closing this discussion as well as the one above, and request you not post any further on my talk page. --Drmargi (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2015 (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.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series).
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, THAT DR/N. Thank you for notifying me, something Twobells failed to do. --Drmargi (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
There appears to be a misunderstanding here. I made the Episode 11 summary in good faith and kept it at a length that complied with the page as short summaries seem to be preferred. I don't believe you had any grounds to delete my summary, I have broken no rules on Wikipedia and don't appreciate being accused falsely of doing so. If you have the time, please quote sources to back up your claim? As I can guarantee you won't find a single website on the internet with a summary like the ones I write. I myself have done quite a lot of summaries on Wikipedia in my time here, more recently I did virtually all of the Season 4 Falling Skies summaries, and the Season 2 Sleepy Hollow ones. Thanks.86.15.195.205 (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Jeez, take a pill, and entertain the idea someone might have made a mistake. IP editors routinely add copyvio summaries, and get reverted. Your edit summary when you restore the edit covered the issue; it isn't necessary to berate me here, too. Your summary is back, I edited it for grammar (there were several errors), and we're good. If you want to be taken seriously, register for an account. --Drmargi (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, feel free to delete this section. I mostly made because I thought you may revert my reversion and it was basically to cover myself if I get accused of edit warring, the rules say to discuss stuff first. Anyway I'm quite happy being an IP editor and have been for almost 3 years as my IP is static, I don't edit for recognition, merely to help out when I can. Thankyou. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits on BBCA DM. I shared a story from my dim and distant here. Thought I would share it with you as well. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Interesting! Are you a member of the loyal order of Friday Fisheaters, too? I'm about as lapsed as they make 'em, but entirely identify as Catholic. (There are words for that, I know…) --Drmargi (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Oops missed this reply. I subscribe to one of the main tenets of Marx (Groucho that is, not the German fellow) that I can't join a club that would have me as a member:-) MarnetteD|Talk 03:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it's time to split season episode guides in separate seasons on Castle (TV series). I don't care what AussieLegend says, it's time to split the episodes on Castle and move them there, like any other show has seperate season guides. For example, ER, The West Wing, The Mentalist, Law & Order & it's spinoffs and CSI and it's spinoffs have their separate episode guide for easy reading. Castle doesn't have that and it makes it harder for anyone to read, know about the DVD release date, production of the seasons and such. The talk page of it is right here. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
You'd better care what I have to say, as well as every other editor who wishes to discuss the matter. Decisions are made by consensus and any editor is entitled to join the discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
You could serve as a mediator on this discussion if you like. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't intend serving as mediator, I will be participating in any discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to this discussion either way. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, that sounds more like an ultimatum than an invitation to discuss. I'll say what I've said a million times before (figuratively, if not literally): what content will separate articles present that the single list doesn't, aside from colorful fancrufty tables and the DVD box covers? Then there's WP:SIZERULE. Burden on you to establish consensus, and that means you'd better care what Aussie thinks. --Drmargi (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
You bullying people into not editing and threatening someone when they are explaining to you why your wrong will never help a situation. A full season refers to the number of episodes no when it airs like you think. Such as limited series are picked up for 8-10 episodes or The following or how to get away with murder for 15 episodes those are not full seasons and neither is a 20 episode order. CBS themselves announced that 22 or 24 episodes constitutes a full season any number less than that is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whyedithere (talk • contribs) 23:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Provide one source that a full season is defined by episode numbers not the period from September to May, and I will concede the point. Thus far, you haven't provided that source; you just keep insisting a full season order is based on numbers. No one is bullying you; but two editors have reverted your edit now, so the burden is on you to get on the article talk page, make your case, and try to reach consensus. --Drmargi (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Drmargi. This is in regards to your recent reverts of my edits on Extant (TV series). Directly from the Plot template's Template Documentation, I'm seeing "The objective of a summary is to condense a large amount of information into a short, accessible format. It is not to reproduce the experience of reading or watching the story, nor to cover every detail. For those who have not read or seen the story, it should serve as a general overview of the major points. For those who have, it should be detailed enough to refresh their memory — no more.". This is exactly the use that I am meaning the display of this template for. You also stated that it is the wrong tag to use - instead of simply saying this, could you please direct me towards the correct template? Thanks and regards. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The tag you're using is for plot summaries, generally with movies, not episode summaries. I'm not sure there is one for episode summaries. Rather than tag them, the best thing to do is edit them down. I'll check with AussieLegend, and see what he might know. --Drmargi (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
3rr template, blah blah, dttr, etc. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Whatever. Nothing else was working… --Drmargi (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Jimthing (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you not put words in my mouth. I am most definitely following the rules, as opposed to the other editor here who keeps doing it to HIS/HER personal preference. MOS:ABBR "use "US" in articles with other national abbreviations, e.g. "UK" or "UAE"." – exactly the rule I was following here. Thank you. Jimthing (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have a POV to push and a basic lack of understanding of the difference between policy and guidelines, which Wikipedia has, and rules, which Wikipedia does not. When you make a change and are reverted, you MUST open a discussion on the relevant article's talk page, not simply revert again and tell the editor they're wrong. Discussions take place on talk pages of articles, not via edit summary or on editor talk pages. 24 has used the American English U.S. since it was written, as is done all over Wikipedia. I'm not sure what your big objection to that is, but you must stop edit warring (same for Better Call Saul), and start discussing reasonably and calmly on the relevant article talk page. I'm going to revert back to status quo on 24, per WP:BRD and established practice; the burden is now on you to gain consensus for your change. Before you start discussion, please read WP:NAU and WP:NOTUS. --Drmargi (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Drmargi, do you find it suspicious that the IP editor who attacked you has never edited Wikipedia before, then suddenly pops after Jimthing posted on the talk page? The IP address points to London, England, the same location as Jimthing; maybe a case of meatpuppetry? And seriously, for someone's who's never edited Wikipedia before, I find it hard to believe they'd know about and link to Wiki topics like WP:BOLD, WP:OWN, or "Don't be a jerk". Any way we could confirm this? Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Ducks quacking all over the place; a check user at SPI might handle it, but I have no faith in the administrative corps, frankly (currently am regretting having supported Sarek's RfA, given his quick application of the boomerang). Jimthing had something around 12-15 reverts and went unblocked on Better Call Saul; the admins don't care if they're British and aggressive. He restored his attack post this AM, which I've removed again, and will continue to remove it. Too bad he lacks the courage to discuss without attacking, much less to avoid logging on as an IP to level such a crass one. Meanwhile, he remains blinkered to WP:NOTUSA in his effort to make American English articles British. --Drmargi (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Drmargi, just giving my support to you. You might remember me from the Elementary topic I made on your page. Anyway I personally think you should report him for sock puppetry. The writing style in his posts mirrors that of the IP user. I found it suspicious that within minutes of him posting on the 24 talk page an IP user appeared and immediately went on the attack against you. I've used Wikipedia long enough to know that no talk page is that active that an IP user can view a talk page and join a discussion within minutes. Writing style aside, and what I've said aside, both he and the IP user love to use brackets in their responses, and both seem overly concerned about Wikipedia rules. I find it awfully suspicious that an IP user with no real edit history can be so knowledgable about what happens on Wikipedia. I've been editing for 3 years almost with almost 2000 edits and honestly have no friggin clue about every rule, I'm happy to follow what people suggest. Anyway best of luck to you. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks!! Briefly, if he pushes any further, I will. I was looking for a pattern, but you did a super job ferreting that out. You support is appreciated. Sadly, the Brits never bother to understand how we us U.S. versus USA, then presume to tell us how to abbreviate the name of our own country. Greatest madness of all: that article title on this country is wrong. --Drmargi (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I really do feel for you and Drove, you're two experienced editors dragged into this horrendous situation. I've honestly never seen a TV show page from ABC, NBC, CBS, the CW, or Fox use the US term on here. He seems to claim you both are unwilling to listen to reason but you've both been more than fair towards him. It's bad faith for him to forcefully change U.S. to US and then hold a discussion about the change, I tried explaining in my edit summary on the 24 page that he needs to stop and discuss it in the talk page and leave the page how it was prior. Anyway good luck I guess. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
You're invited to join a discussion here. It's about a proposal about an idea of having film by year articles made and produced by certain countries, such as [[2013 in films in United States of America]], [[2013 in films in England]] and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I note the BBC source now used in the article has been updated to say that the next 2 episodes will not be shown and the third may not air. I'm not sure of the best way to treat this, especially since everyone has ignored the {{citation needed}} tag on the episodes. On a related note, I wonder how this will affect non-TV issues. If Clarkson is fired, will Top Gear Festival Sydney go ahead in April? If not, next time we have a referendum I'll be voting for a republic. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, just getting to this now. I made my first corrections at lunchtime here, when the shyte first hit the fire; a lot new happened while I was away from the computer, so my edits might not be the most current any longer. My objective was to keep the language as tentative and accurate as possible given the lack of substantive information (anyone had a look at Clarkson's own article?) After reading a bit, the status of the episodes seems to vary depending on the publication; the BBC is still saying postponed, as does Radio Times, unless I missed something overnight. I think the most tentative language is the best; postponed pending the investigation of Clarkson's actions. I also think we need to request page protection for the main Top Gear page and the season page, given the spate of speculation and misinterpretation in the last few hours. Now as for Clarkson; the moron won't be fired. They'll get him on YouTube apologizing for his actions, and make noises about him attending anger management training, and the show will be back in a couple weeks. (No comment on the referendum, but you can imagine my biases!!) --Drmargi (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
You've done well, keeping the article under control, but I was considering RFPP myself. Until then, we'll just have to watch each other's edits to make sure neither inadvertently breaches 3RR while attempting to keep the speculation and rubbish out of the article. The state of different publications certainly doesn't help, and it's made worse by the fact that some editors are not reading whole articles, just key words. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! You're right about 3RR. Things have calmed down a bit, but if there are many more issues with IP's, PP might be the best move. --Drmargi (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Drmargi. Are we being careful because we don't know, or because there is an "ongoing investigation", or because he's too minor a member of the team, or for some other reason(s)? The source looks pretty clear to me, that he is a current producer of the programme. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Producer covers a lot of ground, and I've never seen the name in the credits (the last episode having been on here on Monday night.) Let's not rush headlong into adding him until we know something definitive. --Drmargi (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
No worries. Only blatant opportunism on my part, just seeking consistency. I'm more surprised we have only one producer, Lloyd Washbrook, listed there. After 13 years?? This is one way for Tymon to get famous, I suppose. I'll hold off for now - I wouldn't want anyone to get "slapped". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC) p.s. top on-line anagram suggestion for Oisin Tyomn is "Mini Snooty".
Love the anagram! I think that less is more right now; there's really no reason to remove the name other than the circumstances that lead to his being there and the absence of other names. Once we can compile a more complete list, let's add 'em all! --Drmargi (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Click the link there you can see that the Information is correct.
Either source it properly or stop the constant reverting. You are edit warring, and it has to stop. I can't find what you're talking about. --Drmargi (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Peter Gould says: "Episode 9, which was written and directed by Tom Schnauz, is to my eye, a really spectacular piece of work. To say nothing of episode 10, which I wrote and directed" —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikiFring (talk • contribs) 23:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, but it's your responsibility to source your edit properly. If you don't know how, see WP:EDIT and WP:RS or ask for help. But STOP edit warring! --Drmargi (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert. I realise an edit count is not an indication of experience but why do people with only limited experience always seem to argue the most? I've made nearly 115,000 edits and my edit history shows a lot of time spent at WT:TV, MOS:TV and hundreds of TV articles. When I say something, why do these people immediately assume that I'm talking through my arse and that they know more than me? just venting --AussieLegend (✉) 17:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
No problem; thanks for fixing the piece I reverted, then couldn't get back on my iPad. Keeping status quo is harder and harder these days as newer editors grow more and more aggressive. It's not that they assume you're talking through your arse, though they want you to seem that way; it's that you're an obstacle they can only get over by defeating you, rather than by the strength of their arguments and though consensus. And sadly, our admin corps is so weakened these days, there's no oversight that prevents them from doing so. Policy is nearly meaningless these days. --Drmargi (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm now distracted by the knowledge that you use an iPad to edit Wikipedia. I can't do it, I use my wife's iPad predominantly for SimCity. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't often because it's so clunky. Mine is for work, and too often, Bubble Witch. Sigh… --Drmargi (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a relief and yes, she has Bubble Witch loaded too. By contrast my Android tablet has fun stuff like a car engine scanner, a monitoring app for the solar panels on our roof and, of course, SimCity. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
All the toys a boy can use. But Android? Pah! --Drmargi (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm morally and ethically opposed to all things crApple. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, what else can I expect from a man who is upside down, with the blood rushing to his head. Meanwhile, the Top Gear article is carnage in the wake of Clarkson's mess. You can always depend on the rabble to keep us busy. --Drmargi (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, if only you had used the word "rubble" instead of "carnage" the alliteration would have been a hoot:-) Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 20:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The rubble from the rabble has the brew that is true… --Drmargi (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
That's what I'm talkin about. Great stuff DM!! MarnetteD|Talk 21:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
TOO FUNNY! I just sent you a text telling you to check the discussion. We may have to help upside-down man out with the cultural reference. --Drmargi (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I used to have a mortar, but I broke the vessel with my pestle, just before I knocked over a chalice in my palace. It's probably a good thing. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, good man. You get Danny Kaye. I knew there was something I liked about you! --Drmargi (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
This just keeps getting better! I could certainly hear DK's voice as I was reading your post A. Thanks to you both for making my ribs ache from chuckling. MarnetteD|Talk 21:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I miss the quality of actors like Danny Kaye. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
No kidding. They had so much, and such diverse talent. When he was near the end of his life, we used to see him sitting in the owners' box at the LA Dodgers' games, and it never failed to impress me. --Drmargi (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing the memory DM. I loved his appearance on The Muppet Show - especially his rendition of "Inchworm". Another fond memory is when he was a guest conductor with the New York Philharmonic. It aired on PBS - maybe on Great Performances - I wonder if it is out there on the interwebs? MarnetteD|Talk 22:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit. Any chance you'd like to weigh in here? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. I corrected those article back ten years or so some while back, so consistency really doesn't hold up. --Drmargi (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I was just contemplating a discussion myself. Glad to see I'm not the only one this guy has annoyed. --Drmargi (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
He is getting out of hand... I told him he is officially a vandal. Sorry if this was in violation of WP:AGF but it's pretty clear at this point. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd characterize him as vandal, but he's definitely editing disruptively, and edit warring. --Drmargi (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more clear here. I was suggesting that maybe he was confusing "cookie recipe" for the common expression "cookie cutter", meaning formulaic. As in "these plot summaries are cookie-cutter; there's nothing interesting about them." On the other hand, maybe it's some sort of regional expression in his land. Or maybe something that he picked up when he became a sophisticated 42-year-old. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure that's what he meant, and I understood what you were saying. My comments were simply to underscore the chaotic lack of communication. At least he's blocked for the time being. --Drmargi (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll shut up now.:) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Drmargi,
I wanted to ask, why you undid my change for the Richard Castle Page regarding him being a CIA operative? Only his father is a CIA operative and the aliases were also used by his father (even the Reference "2" regards to his father).
Please check again if my change isn't justified. If you have a reference where Richard Castle is explicitly called a CIA operative, would you mind give me the link - I really would like to read it. Thx.Ruffy1989 (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The text that you changed actually refers to his father, not to him, although the wording is confusing. It's meant to read "Castle is the son of Martha Rodgers and a CIA operative" but, since it can be misread as "Castle is the father and the son and a CIA operative" I've re-worded it to avoid any ambiguity. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to noticeboard here about vandalism on 2014–15 United States network television schedule about IP users adding Marlton School on that article, along with other TV show related articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It's been 5 days since the ANI report and there have no opinions or solutions issued by admins (other than one that answer to Helmboy's questions). Should we try a new tactic to get admins' attentions? Or will they finally realize there is an old topic still on going (before it is archived)? I am getting continuously annoyed by Helmboy's attitude and behavior. Nothing than I-know-it-all, I'm-always-right and it's-my-way-or-no-way sides. Seems trying to knock some sense into the user is highly impossible. The issue just keeps getting bigger and bigger by the hour and seemingly nobody cares. I want some closure; that's all I am asking for. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 03:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
You can try contacting individual administrators and making your case. They've let the issue go stale, so I'm not sure how much luck you'll have. I figure they've given us tacit permission to edit war his problem edits by virtue of their failure to act on them. This is the third editor recently where they've just ignored pleas on ANI, where we're supposed to go for help, because there's not enough drama to suit their tastes. --Drmargi (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
How about you try using an edit summary once in a while so that other editors know what you're doing? The unsourced (by two editors) removal appeared to be vandalism. --Drmargi (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
As someone not involved in the subject, may I suggest you read the talk page guidlelines? WP:TALK. Calling an editor on his talk page "childish" is certainly more of a personal attack than his reference to "page owners". Given that form is plural, it obviously is not a personal attack on you. Rather than violate WP:3RR and run the risk of being brought up for vandalising talk page remarks, why don't you take this case to ANI yourself if you believe you are being attacked? μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You too? Hiding behind plural doesn't alter the fact the attack is leveled at me; that it's also leveled at another editor as well doesn't mean it's not a personal attack. Bugs has a long history of this sort of editing. BTW, describing his edit as childish, which it is, is not a personal attack. It's a comment on an editorial choice he made. That's been discussed endlessly on ANI, a place for which I do not care to be fodder. I'll deal with Bugs directly. --Drmargi (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think you ARE 15 years old. You're edit-warring. Pointing that out is not a personal attack. You had best stop the edit-warring before someone stops it for you. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Bugs, is it possible for you to discuss something without cheap shots and personal attacks? I've begun to think it's not. Why don't you and your little friends go find an article to edit? --Drmargi (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Please do not remove content from article talk pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:List of Person of Interest episodes, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉✓ 18:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: I suggest you have a closer look at the content that Drmargi removed. It contained a clear personal attack (calling people "owners") from a serial attacker who has been accusing Drmargi of owning that article since at least September last year. I've had to step in previously over that editor's conduct, and I'm not the only one who has made comment. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I saw it. It said "owners". Plural. A general reference, not targeting one person, therefore, not a personal attack. Regardless, talk page comments only are removed under extreme circumstances. The comments removed did not fit the criteria. See WP:TPG for more. -- WV ● ✉✓ 18:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs has been fighting with Drmargi since at least last year. This is not a one-off instance. It's an ongoing problem. If you look at the whole discussion, and not just one or two posts you'll see that it was aimed at Drmargi. It is permissible to remove personal attacks. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, baloney. I am one of the targets, and playing fuzzy dummies over plural v. singular won't alter that. Bugs refuses to let a petty issue drop, and prefers to take pot shots when the opportunity presents itself. I won't tolerate being on the receiving end, period. --Drmargi (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Riiiiight. I'm the one who found it necessary, months after the issue that lead to all this was resolved, to come back to a discussion and leave yet another cheap shot. Go find somewhere else to play. --Drmargi (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
And you found it necessary to issue personal attacks against me on my own talk page. I pointed out that you and others were edit warring. That is not a personal attack, it's a fact. I think the core issue is that you were wrong about the details of the 2014-2015 season, and that's what's gotten under your skin. To quote you yourself: Grow up. Get over it. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I see far more personal attacks and cheap shots (as you called them) made by you, DM. You both should walk away, but it seems to me that you are the one finding it much more difficult to stop the personal attacks and drop the stick. -- WV ● ✉✓ 19:29, 15 May 2015 (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.
Drmargi, there's a reason why I reverted those edits because the source because @AdamDeanHall: changed the refs to a more reliable source. Drovethrughosts has replace the refs to not the most reliable source and that's why I've been reverting those edits. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
You need to get on the talk page and make your case, not edit war. There's no discernible difference between what Zap2it posted and what Futon Critic posted, and no consensus that one is more reliable than the other. ADH has an obnoxious habit of changing sources for no reason, and you're fostering behavior he's been warned to stop. --Drmargi (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of ADH's history, there are at times Futon can make incorrect reports and sometimes Zap2it has more updated versions of that certain news. I just thought you should know that before you start question my thoughts on whatever side I'm on. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Show me the discussion and consensus to that effect. I never seen that, and never seen any issues with the currency of FC. Regardless, this isn't about questioning judgment, this is about an unexplained changed that resulted in an edit war that belonged on the article talk page as a discussion. --Drmargi (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Invictus maneo. I'm doing well, and hope you are the same! --Drmargi (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Alles gut. Sorry to see you suffering at the hands of the usual suspects but glad to see you're rising above the detritus. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Pfft! It's like swatting flies sometimes. One does what one must, then brushes off the dust. --Drmargi (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Drmargi, there's a reason why I reverted those edits because the source because @AdamDeanHall: changed the refs to a more reliable source. Drovethrughosts has replace the refs to not the most reliable source and that's why I've been reverting those edits. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
You need to get on the talk page and make your case, not edit war. There's no discernible difference between what Zap2it posted and what Futon Critic posted, and no consensus that one is more reliable than the other. ADH has an obnoxious habit of changing sources for no reason, and you're fostering behavior he's been warned to stop. --Drmargi (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of ADH's history, there are at times Futon can make incorrect reports and sometimes Zap2it has more updated versions of that certain news. I just thought you should know that before you start question my thoughts on whatever side I'm on. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Show me the discussion and consensus to that effect. I never seen that, and never seen any issues with the currency of FC. Regardless, this isn't about questioning judgment, this is about an unexplained changed that resulted in an edit war that belonged on the article talk page as a discussion. --Drmargi (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Invictus maneo. I'm doing well, and hope you are the same! --Drmargi (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Alles gut. Sorry to see you suffering at the hands of the usual suspects but glad to see you're rising above the detritus. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Pfft! It's like swatting flies sometimes. One does what one must, then brushes off the dust. --Drmargi (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.